L-s-l  ■’  ',•;  • 


'  :'.'^V^*'  t-- 


l\xe  ^ 


PRIlSrCETON,  N.  J. 

\ 


er^}  Central  evidences  of 


Christianity 


BT  1101  .C43 


•i  ■  1  ■  -  ■' ,  '‘■^<. 


Central  Evidences 


OF 


Christianity. 


AMERICAN  TRACT  SOCIETY, 

150  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK. 


CHRIST  THE  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE  OF  CHRIS¬ 
TIANITY.  By  Principal  Cairns . j 

UNITY  OF  THF  CHARACTER  OF  THE  CHRIST  OF 

THE  GOSPELS.  By  Prebendary  Row  .  .  -45 

AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  By 

Prebendary  IVace . iii 

HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION 

OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  By  Prebendary  Row .  .  .165 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES  AT  THE  PRES¬ 
ENT  DA  Y.  By  Principal  Cairns . 217 

THE  WITNESS  OF  MAN'S  MORAL  NATURE  TO 

CHRISTIANITY.  By  Dr.  Thomson  ,  .  .  .263 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/centralevidencesOOunse 


CHRIST 


THE 

Ceiiiial  Evidence  of  Codictiiinitv 


BY 

REY.  PRIHCIPAR'^CAIRHS,  D.  D., 

AUTHOR  OF 

“CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.’* 


THE  ARGUMENT  IN  BRIEF. 


-  ■ 

I.  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  a  real  person,  be¬ 
cause  of  the  wonderfulness,  originality,  and  unity  of 
the  conception  of  his  character,  which  are  admitted  by 
the  most  eminent  unbelievers ;  because  of  the  harmony 
of  the  portraiture  found  amid  all  the  diversities  in  the 
four  Gospels ;  because  of  the  failure  of  recent  attempts 
to  invalidate  the  historical  truth  of  the  Gospels,  or 
produce  a  new  reading  of  them  which  commands  gen¬ 
eral  acceptance. 

II.  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  shown  to  be  the 
centre  and  strength  of  every  argument  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  The  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament  all 
lead  up  to  him.  The  success  of  Christianity  is  due  to 
him.  Prophecy  derives  all  its  coherence  and  signifi¬ 
cance  from  him.  The  adaptation  of  Christianity  is 
due  to  him.  The  argument  from  the  reflection  of 
God’s  holiness  and  love  centres  in  him. 


CHRIST 


THE 

Central  Evidence  of  Christianity. 

■  4'—  - 

It  is  becoming  more  and  more  apparent  to 
friend  and  foe,  in  the  great  struggle  between 
Christian  faith  and  doubt,  that  the  key  of  the 
position  is  the  person  of  Christ  himself ;  and  that 
so  long  as  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  Gospel 
narrative  as  to  the  life,  character,  and  work  of 
that  grand  central  figure  can  be  accepted  as 
‘  ‘  fact,  and  not  delusion,  ’  ^  no  weapon  lifted 
against  Christianity  can  prevail.  It  is  a  pre¬ 
sumptive  argument  of  truth  in  any  system  to 
have  a  centre;  and  in  this  tract  I  propose  to  show, 
confining  attention  chiefly  to  the  four  Gospels,  that 
the  life  of  Christ  as  there  exhibited  is  a  reality, 
and  is  so  fitted  to  bind  all  the  Christian  evidences 
together  as  to  furnish  an  additional  and  indepen¬ 
dent  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  the  Christian 
faith. 

Our  question  is  twofold:  Is  THR  Christ  OR 
the:  Gospres  a  rrae  person  ? 


8  CHRIST  THi;  CKNTRAR  KVID^NCK 

If  SO,  HOW  DOES  THIS  CONCENTRATE,  AND 
THUS  STRENGTHEN  ARE  TPIE  EVIDENCES  OE 

Christianity  ? 


I. 

It  is  not  neccessary  to  go  into  any  other  part  of 
the  New  Testament  to  find  a  sufficient  answer  to 
the  question,  what  the  Gospels  really  mean  by 
their  narratives  of  Christ’s  life  and  death  and  res¬ 
urrection.  No  doubt  most  important  and  precious 
expositions  are,  as  Christians  believe,  divinely 
added.  But  to  the  vast  majority  of  Christians,  it 
has  ever  seemed  that  the  Gospels,  not  excluding 
the  foregoing  light  of  the  Old  Testament,  are 
the  very  fountain-heads  of  all  Christian  doctrine, 
and  they  are  so  because  they  contain  the  portrait 
of  Christ  himself,  and  his  own  utterances  as  to 
his  personal  rank  and  character,  and  the  aim  and 
issue  of  his  earthly  mission.  The  sum  of  the 
teaching  of  Christ’s  recorded  life  and  history  may 
be  given  thus:  that  we  have  in  him,  as  man,  a 
perfect  and  sinless  example;  that  he  is  truly  God 
as  well  as  man;  and  that  as  a  Saviour,  by  his 
sacrifice  on  the  cross,  and  other  provisions  of  his 
redemption,  he  rescues  men  from  the  guilt  and 
power  of  sin,  and  restores  them  to  God. 

Deeper  statements  of  Christian  theology  are 
not  here  needed.  These  are  concurred  in  by  the 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


9 


immense  majority  of  Christians  as  drawn  from 
and  founded  on  the  records  of  Christ’s  own  life. 
Nor  by  them  only,  for  there  are  others  of  no  small 
name,  unhappily  not  themselves  Christians,  who 
grant  that  Christians  have  not  here  misinter¬ 
preted  their  own  records,  and  that,  whether  true 
or  false,  these  are  the  conceptions  of  Christ’s  per¬ 
son,  character,  life,  and  influence  which  the 
writers  of  these  documents  intended  them  to  em¬ 
body. 

It  will  be  granted,  to  begin  with,  that  these 
conceptions  of  a  human  life,  actually  realising 
perfection,  nay,  embracing  an  incarnation  of  God, 
and  thus  affording  a  complete  and  divinely  sanc¬ 
tioned  remedy  for  moral  and  spiritual  evil,  are  the 
most  remarkable,  simply  as  conceptions,  in  all 
literature.  The  mere  statement  of  them  is  enough 
to  relieve  us  from  the  charge  of  vagueness  and 
generality  when  we  speak  of  the  life,  character, 
and  work  of  Christ;  we  can  therefore  proceed  to 
the  argument  of  this  tract,  and  show  first  that 
these  are  not  mere  conceptions,  however  great, 
but  facts  of  a  true  and  solid  history;  and  then 
that  all  Christian  evidence  becomes,  by  this  proof, 
strong  with  a  new  strength,  and  bright  with  a 
new  light. 

The  proof  of  my  first  point  is  more  copious 
than  can  be  fully  stated;  but  the  arguments  for 


lO  CHRIST  th:^  ckntrar  KVIDKNCK 

the  historical  reality  of  the  life  and  character  of 
Christ,  as  indicated,  are  such  as  follow: 

I.  The  historical  truth  of  the  Christ  of  the 
Gospels  is  vouched  for  by  its  transcendent  wonder^ 
fulness  a7td  originality.  It  is  not  the  Christian 
church  only  that  speaks  thus;  for  even  those  on 
its  outer  verge  or  beyond  its  limits  give  back 
Christian  language  here  with  a  strange  echo. 
Rousseau’s  picture  of  Christ- — almost  incredible 
from  a  man  of  such  life,  though  he  always  claimed 
to  be  a  Christian — is  wound  up  in  these  words, 
“The  gospel  has  marks  of  truth  so  great,  so 
striking,  so  perfectly  inimitable,  that  the  inven¬ 
tor  of  it  would  be  more  astonishing  than  the 
hero.”*  Nor  can  we  say  that  Rousseau  limits 
himself  to  the  human  side  of  Jesus,  for  he  says, 

‘  ‘  If  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates  are  those  of  a 
sage,  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  are  those  of  a 
God.”t 

It  is  a  lower  testimony  that  Mr.  Stuart  Mill 
delivers;  yet  though  he  takes  exception  to  the 
proper  deity  of  Jesus,  as  not  claimed  even  by 
himself,  he  grants  the  originality  of  his  character 
to  be  a  proof  of  its  historical  truth.  “Who 
among  the  disciples  of  Jesus  or  among  their  pros¬ 
elytes  was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings  as¬ 
cribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  life  and 

^  Emile^  Book-  IV.  f  Ibid.,  Book  IV. 


OF'  CHRISTIANITY. 


II 


character  revealed  in  the  Gospels  ?  Certainly  not 
the  fishermen  of  Galilee,  as  certainly  not  St. 
Paul.”*  The  question  then  comes  back  on  Mr. 
Mill,  who  it  was  that  suggested  to  the  evangel¬ 
ists  the  more  divine  features  of  Jesus,  or  those 
which  have  led  the  Christian  world  to  take  him 
for  divine.  According  to  Mr.  Mill  himself,  “it 
is  the  God  incarnate,  more  than  the  God  of  the 
J ews  or  of  nature,  who,  being  idealised,  has  taken 
so  great  and  salutary  a  hold  on  the  modern 
mind.”t  But  if  the  evangelists  could  not  have 
invented,  as  he  grants,  the  human  Christ,  how 
much  less  could  they  have  idealised  him  into 
God  ?  A  history  which  has  led  the  vast  majority 
of  readers  in  all  ages  to  feel  that  it  was  more  than 
human,  is  confessedly  beyond  human  construction. 
Christian  theology  itself  is  baffled  when  it  tries  to 
state  in  propositions  the  two  natures  of  Christ, 
and  the  relation  between  them.  The  decrees  of 
councils  and  the  terms  of  creeds  rather  exclude 
error  than  grasp  truth.  Yet  here  admittedly,  in 
the  narratives  of  the  evangelists,  the  impossible 
is  achieved.  The  living  Christ  walks  forth,  and 
men  bow  before  him.  Heaven  and  earth  unite 
all  through :  power  with  gentleness,  solitary  great¬ 
ness  with  familiar  intimacy,  ineffable  purity  with 
forgiving  pity,  unshaken  will  with  unfathomable 

Essays  on  Theism,  p.  252.  f  Ibid.,  p.  252. 


12 


CHRIST  THK  CJ:nTRAL  EVIDENCE: 


sorrow.  There  is  no  effort  in  these  writers,  but 
the  character  rises  till  it  is  complete.  It  is  thus 
not  only  truer  than  fiction  or  abstraction,  but  truer 
than  all  other  history,  carrying  through  utterly 
unimaginable  scenes  the  stamp  of  simplicity  and 
sincerity,  creating  what  was  to  live  for  ever,  but 
only  as  it  had  lived  already,  and  reflecting  a  glory 
that  had  come  so  near,  and  been  beheld  so  in¬ 
tently,  that  the  record  of  it  was  not  only  full  of 
‘  ‘  grace,  ’  ’  but  of  ‘  ‘  truth.  ’  ’ 

The  unity  of  the  character  of  Jesus  is  one  of 
the  most  singular  features  in  each  Gospel  narra¬ 
tive.  We  apprehend  this  better  when  some  great 
and  admired  writer  in  going  over  the  same  sacred 
ground  falls,  so  to  speak,  out  of  the  piece.  An 
instance  of  this  has  struck  me  much  in  so  con¬ 
summate  a  master  of  description  as  Goethe;  and 
it  has  struck  me  all  the  more  that  the  injury  is 
only  done  to  the  Saviour  as  his  character  is  re¬ 
flected  in  his  disciples.  In  the  admired  Easter 
scene  in  the  “Faust,”  the  chorus  of  angels  bring 
the  message  of  resurrection,  and  the  women  take 
up  the  language  of  disappointment,  saying  that 
they  find  Christ  no  longer  here.  This  may  be 
the  result  of  lingering  doubt;  but  when  the  mes¬ 
sage  is  sounded  again  by  the  angels,  and  taken  up 
by  the  chorus  of  disciples,  who  now  accept  the 
fact,  their  first  utterance  is  one  of  grief  that  their 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


13 


Master  is  raised  to  heaven,  and  they  are  left  to 
suj0fer  below,  so  that  the  angels  need  again  to 
comfort  them  by  the  assurance  of  his  continued 
and  invariable  presence.  Now  nothing  is  less 
like  the  Gospel  scenes.  The  disciples  suffer  there 
only  from  the  stroke  of  Christ’s  death,  and  the 
fear  that  his  rising  was  too  good  news  to  be  true. 
Their  sense  of  joy  and  of  triumph,  of  joy  in,  and 
of  triumph  with,  him,  were  he  but  risen  indeed, 
was  so  great,  that  no  room  could  possibly  have 
been  left,  with  Christ  anywhere,  for  such  lamen¬ 
tation  as  Goethe  introduces;  and  thus  these  art¬ 
less,  unlettered  men  have  drawn  a  truer  Christ 
than  this  great  genius,  with  their  example  before 
him,  and  with  all  Christian  literature  beside,  was 
able  to  do. 

2.  A  seco7id  argument  for  the  historical  reality 
of  Christ’s  life  and  character  is  found  in  the  consent 
of  so  many  separate  testimonies.  I  am  not  now 
urging  the  credibility  of  the  evangelists  on  the 
ordinary  historical  grounds  of  their  nearness  to 
the  facts  and  their  integrity  as  witnesses.  These 
considerations  cannot,  in  their  own  place,  be 
overestimated  ;  and  the  whole  strain  of  recent 
criticism  is  in  the  direction  of  confirming  disputed 
points  of  date  and  authorship.  I  proceed  now, 
however,  rather  upon  the  simple  fact  that  so 
many  separate  writers,  with  visible  independence, 


14  CHRIST  the:  central  EVIDENCE 

should  have  drawn  essentially  the  same  unpar¬ 
alleled  character.  One  Gospel  is  a  marvel;  what 
shall  we  say  of  four,  each  with  its  distinct  plan — 
its  enlargements  and  omissions,  its  variations  even 
where  most  coincident,  its  problems  as  yet  un¬ 
solved,  but  always  yielding  something  to  fresh 
inquiry,  and  only  making  more  manifest  the  un¬ 
challengeable  oneness  and  divinity  of  the  history  ? 
The  difficulties  of  the  Gospels  from  divergence  are 
as  nothing  compared  with  the  impression -made 
by  them  all  of  one  transcendent  creation ;  and  for 
my  part,  if  I  rejected  inspiration,  I  should  have 
reason  to  be  still  more  astonished.  Some  slight 
mistake  could  so  sadly  have  impaired  perfection — 
or  yet  more  easily  lowered  divinity;  some  careless 
handling  might  have  deranged  the  balance  at  the 
most  critical  point,  or  pulled  down  the  structure 
in  hopeless  disaster.  Yet,  though  we  see  how 
different  the  plan  of  each  Gospel  is,  there  is  not 
any  such  trace  of  failure.  The  long  discourses  / 
are  left  out  by  Mark,  but  in  action  his  Christ 
equals  that  of  Matthew.  Luke  has  his  own  type 
both  of  parable  and  miracle;  but  the  same  inimi¬ 
table  figure  starts  up  from  all.  The  sorest  trial  to 
the  familiar  features  comes  from  the  fourth  Gos¬ 
pel,  without  a  parable  and  hardly  a  miracle  like 
the  foregoing,  and  with  so  great  a  flood  of  novelty, 
especially  towards  the  end.  But  the  unity  in  di- 


OB'  CHRISTIANITY. 


15 


versity  is  only  tlie  more  marvellous.  The  Christ 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  the  Word  of  God;  but  he 
is  still  the  Son  of  man.  He  utters  no  Sermon  on 
the  Mount;  but  he  still  preaches  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  The  sheep  scattered  abroad  find  in  him 
still  the  Good  Shepherd.  There  is  no  exorcism; 
but  the  prince  of  this  world  is  cast  out.  There  is 
no  transfiguration,  but  his  glory  is  throughout 
beheld;  no  agony  in  the  garden,  but  his  soul  is 
troubled.  Mary  and  Martha  reappear,  but  at¬ 
tended  by  Lazarus.  He  does  not  say,  “This  is 
my  body,”  but  he  gives  his  flesh  to  eat;  and  words 
as  heavenly,  and  in  fuller  measure,  soothe  the 
parting  meal.  He  has  the  same  night  watches. 
He  sheds  the  same  tears.  He  walks  the  same 
waters,  and  ascends  up  where  he  was  before.  His 
prayer  in  all  the  Gospels  is  intercession — in  the 
last  most  prolonged  and  tender.  He  returns  from 
the  grave  to  breathe  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  con¬ 
nect  that  name  with  the  Father’s  and  his  own. 
His  presence  is  the  final  hope  of  the  earlier  Gos¬ 
pels  ;  his  coming  of  the  last ;  and  the  closing 
charge  but  repeats  all  former  calls,  “  Follow  thou 
Me.”  In  the  view  of  this  vast  and  stupendous 
harmony,  how  small  are  all  objections,  as  that  the 
scenes  in  the  fourth  Gospel  lie  more  in  Jerusalem, 
though  this  also  is  met  by  the  word  in  the  other 
Gospels,  “How  often  would  I  have  gathered  you,” 


l6  CHRIST  THE  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE 

Matt.  23:37;  or  that  the  chronology  differs,  though 
the  last  Gospel  really  aids  us  in  solving  chronologi¬ 
cal  difficulties;  or  that  the  style  tends  more  to  self- 
assertion  in  the  face  of  unbelief,  though  this  is 
part  of  the  self-revelation  that  enters  into  the  idea 
of  this  Gospel,  and  is  abundantly  prefigured  in  the 
great  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees,  and  in  the 
sad  but  lofty  utterances  of  Capernaum,  “No  man 
knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom¬ 
soever  the  Son  will  reveal  him,”  Matt.  11:27, 
the  exact  parallel  of  the  intercessory  prayer,  “O 
righteous  Father,  the  world  hath  not  known  thee; 
but  I  have  known  thee,  and  these  have  known 
that  thou  hast  sent  me.”  John  17:25.  With  all 
these  data,  then,  and  many  others,  of  the  Gospel 
records,  which  are  not  conjectures  but  facts,  the 
only  rational  conclusion  is,  that  they  embody 
reality,  the  greatest  reality  ever  transacted  on  the 
scene  of  time;  that  the  very  diversities  so  often 
appealed  to  as  an  objection  to  this  conclusion 
really  strengthen  it,  and  prove  that  writings 
which  can  so  bring  forth  the  one  out  of  the  mani¬ 
fold  have  in  them  not  only  truth  but  inspiration ; 
and  that  the  Christian  church  stands  in  the  centre 
of  all  history,  divinely  planted  there,  when  she 
still  proclaims  as  from  the  beginning  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ — the  Son  of  God. 

3.  A  third  argument,  and  the  last  here  adduced 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


17 


by  us,  in  favor  of  the  strict  and  literal  truth  of 
the  Gospel  views  of  Christ  is  the  faihu'e  of  rece7tt 
attempts  to  set  them  aside.  If  the  Christ  of  the 
evangelists  were  unhistorical,  surely  by  this  time 
some  better  reading  of  the  story  ought  to  have 
been  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  all.  But  as 
it  is,  the  simple  primitive  records  keep  the  field; 
and  every  new  scheme  is  only  brought  to  birth  to 
find  a  speedy  extinction.  Let  me  illustrate  this 
by  two  instances — the  modern  theories  of  Christ’s 
moral  excellence,  and  the  alleged  origin  of  super¬ 
human  views  of  his  character  and  work. 

Take  first  the  modern  theories  of  Chrisfs  moral 
excellence.  They  have  at  first  a  look  of  great  lib¬ 
erality  towards  Christ  and  Christianity,  and  of 
almost  unexpected  concession  and  homage.  Thus 
says  Renan,  “This  Sublime  Person,  who  daily 
presides  still  over  the  destiny  of  the  world,  we 
may  call  divine,  not  in  the  sense  that  Jesus  ab¬ 
sorbed  all  the  divine,  or,  to  use  a  scholastic  word, 
was  adequate  to  it,  but  in  the  sense  that  Jesus  is 
the  individual  who  has  made  his  species  take  the 
greatest  step  towards  the  divine.”  “Jesus  is  the 
highest  of  the  pillars  that  show  to  man  whence 
he  comes  and  whither  he  ought  to  tend.  In  him 
is  condensed  all  that  is  good  and  exalted  in  our 
nature.”*  But  then  mark  how  all,  in  harmony 

*  “Vie  de  Jesus,”  pp.  457,  458  (nth  French  edition). 

2 


l8  CHRIST  THE  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE 

with  rationalism,  is  qualified.  “  He  was  not  im¬ 
peccable;  he  has  conquered  the  same  passions  that 
we  combat;  no  angel  of  God  comforted  him,  save 
his  own  good  conscience;  no  Satan  tempted  him, 
but  only  that  which  each  carries  in  his  breast.”* 
Exactly  so  it  is  with  Strauss.  He  speaks  in 
his  second  “Eeben  Jesu,”  1864,  as  if  Christ’s 
teaching  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  brought  to 
the  world  a  genial  revolution,  “like  a  fertilising 
rain  in  spring.  ’  ’  f  He  grants  ‘  ‘  that  in  every  re¬ 
spect  Jesus  stands  in  the  first  line  of  those  who 
have  developed  the  ideal  of  humanity,”  and  “by 
embodying  it  in  his  own  person  has  given  it  the 
most  living  warmth,  while  the  society  that  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  him  has  secured  for  this  ideal  the 
widest  reception  among  mankind.  ”J  But  he 
also,  like  Renan,  soon  makes  exceptions,  and 
speaks  of  sides  of  excellence  that  in  Jesus  “were 
only  faintly  indicated,  or  not  even  hinted  at.”§ 
We  see  something,  though  less,  of  the  same 
conflict  in  Mr.  John  S.  Mill.  “When  this  pre¬ 
eminent  genius  is  combined  with  the  qualities  of 
probably  the  greatest  moral  reformer  and  martyr 
to  that  mission  who  ever  existed  upon  the  earth, 
religion  cannot  be  said  to  have  made  a  bad  choice 
in  pitching  upon  this  man  as  the  ideal  represent- 

«  “Vie  de  Jesus,”  p.  458  (nth  French  edition). 

t  “  Leben  Jesu,”  p.  204.  J  Ibid.,  p.  625.  §  Ibid.,  p.  626. 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


19 


ative  and  guide  of  humanity;  nor  even  now  would 
it  be  easy  even  for  an  unbeliever  to  find  a  better 
translation  of  the  rule  of  virtue  from  the  abstract 
to  the  concrete  than  to  endeavor  so  to  live  that 
Christ  would  approve  our  life.”*  Mr.  Mill  is 
indeed  restrained  from  uttering  the  same  qualifi¬ 
cations  as  Renan  and  Strauss;  but  they  lie  in  the 
context  of  his  system,  which  excludes  an  abso¬ 
lutely  perfect  man  as  a  miracle,  just  as  Mr.  Mill 
takes  exception  expressly  to  Jesus  as  divine. 

Now,  without  raising  the  question  of  divinity, 
is  it  not  plain  that  such  a  moral  hero,  great  but 
still  defective,  as  these  writers  have  endeavored 
to  substitute  for  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  is 
utterly  incredible,  if  the  Gospels  are  to  have  even 
so  much  historical  worth  as  they  themselves 
allow  ?  What  flaw  have  the  evangelists  exposed 
in  Christ,  so  as  to  have  it  generally  admitted  as 
in  the  case  of  the  other  great  men  of  the  Bible  ? 
While  the  biographers  of  Christ,  with  their  severe 
simplicity,  do  not  panegyrise  him,  it  is  written 
on  the  face  of  their  narrative  that  they  hold  him 
faultless.  And  what  is  far  more,  Christ  holds 
himself  so,  and  refuses  to  accept  the  eulogies, 
even  the  most  gently  qualified,  that  are  now 
heaped  upon  him.  Any  noble  type  of  goodness 
that  is  still  imperfect,  is  always  painfully,  exqui- 


*  “  Essays  on  Theism,”  p.  255. 


20 


CHRIST  the:  central  EVIDENCE 


sitely  alive  to  the  imperfection,  confesses  it  before 
man,  lays  it  open  before  God,  and  repels  with 
utter  abhorrence  words  that  savor  of  unlimited 
perfection.  Had  the  character  of  Jesus  been  what 
these  writers  assert,  could  he  have  concealed  it 
from  himself,  or  disguised  it  from  his  disciples? 
Must  he  not  have  uttered  some  note  of  warning-, 
like  the  greatest  of  his  followers,  “Stand  up,  I 
myself  also  am  a  man;”  “We  also  are  men  of 
like  passion  with  yourselves  ’  ’  ?  Whereas  Christ 
challenges  the  Pharisees,  “Which  of  you  con- 
vinceth  me  of  sin?”  John  8:46. 

Even  in  the  most  solemn  act  of  prayer,  and  in 
the  review  of  a  completed  life,  he  addresses  the 
Father,  “I  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth.  I 
have  finished  the  work  which  Thou  gavest  me  to 
do.”  John  17:4.  These,  it  may  be  said,  are 
expressions  drawn  from  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  in 
its  peculiar  strain.  But  do  not  the  synoptists 
represent  Jesus  as  fully  accepting  the  professedly 
divine  testimony,  “Thou  art  My  beloved  Son: 
in  Thee  I  am  well  pleased  ’  ’  ?  And  does  he  not 
claim  universal  obedience  and  imitation,  as  in  the 
words,  “Team  of  Me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly 
in  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls  ’  ’  ? 
We  cannot  but  here  admire  the  superiority  of 
these  simple  writers  to  their  modern  improvers. 
The  Gospel  Christ  without  stain,  without  confes- 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


21 


sion,  without  prayer  for  pardon,  is  in  harmony 
with  himself  and  with  every  law  of  moral  con- 
gruity;  whereas  this  Christ  of  recent  criticism, 
covering  up  under  a  fair  exterior  the  blemishes 
which  he  must  feel  but  never  avows,  is  not  so 
remote  from  the  whited  sepulchres  that  he  de¬ 
nounces;  and  the  picture  violates  every  canon  of 
truth  and  reason. 

The  second  instance  where  a  departure  from 
'the  Gospel  scheme  lands  in  incoherence  and  ab¬ 
surdity,  is  in  regard  to  the  alleged  origm  of  super- 
htiman  views  of  Chris f  s  life  and  character.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Gospels, 
Christ  from  the  beginning  understands  his  own 
dignity,  and  the  nature  of  his  mission  as  a  Sa¬ 
viour  by  sacrifice;  whereas  his  disciples,  notwith¬ 
standing  his  frequent  teaching,  have  very  vague 
notions  of  his  true  greatness,  and  wholly  fail  to 
take  in  the  meaning  and  necessity  of  his  death, 
and  by  consequence  the  certainty  and  importance 
of  his  resurrection.  It  is  only  when  Christ  re¬ 
turns  from  the  dead,  and  teaches  his  followers  on 
these  points  from  Scripture,  that  they  begin  to 
understand  his  true  design,  and  are  lifted  up  from 
the  depression  into  which  they  had  fallen,  so  as 
to  be  henceforth,  after  he  has  left  them,  suitable 
witnesses  of  these  great  truths  to  others.  No  part 
of  the  Gospel  narrative  is  more  natural  or  more 


22  CHRIST  the:  CKNTRAI,  EVIDENCE 

beautiful  than  this  opening  of  minds  blinded  by 
prejudice,  like  the  rest  of  their  countrymen,  to 
the  real  greatness  of  their  Lord,  and  to  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  character  of  the  death  which  had  so  much 
afilicted  them;  but  which  they  now  see,  through 
the  lesson  of  his  resurrection  and  his  own  instruc¬ 
tions,  to  have  been  the  needful  path  to  the  saving 
of  mankind  and  to  his  own  glory.  But  now  mark 
how  all  this  is,  by  modern  criticism,  dislocated 
and  turned  into  utter  chaos.  According  to  some, 
Christ’s  own  plan  changes  through  stress  of  cir¬ 
cumstances;  and  others,  who  save  him  from  this 
weakness  or  crooked  design,  credit  his  followers 
with  a  fertility  of  expedient  and  a  flexibility  of 
character  that  go  into  the  regions  of  the  unreal 
and  monstrous.  Without  the  help  of  miracle,  or 
word  of  the  returning  Christ,  or  prompting  of  any 
spirit  higher  than  their  own  invention  or  fancy, 
they  suddenly  believe  in  an  imaginary  resurrec¬ 
tion.  In  the  depths  of  the  darkest  midnight, 
when  overwhelmed  by  the  catastrophe  which  has 
wrecked  for  ever  their  worldly  hopes,  they  start 
into  creators  of  a  moral  w^orld  of  boundless  nov¬ 
elty.  They  not  only  devise  a  resurrection  of 
which  previously  they  had  heard  nothing  from 
Jesus  or  any  other,  but  they  read  this  into  the  Old 
Testament,  and  with  it  an  entirely  new  concep¬ 
tion  of  their  Messiah.  They  raise  their  dead 


Ol?  CHRISTIANITY. 


23 


Master  not  only  to  life  but  to  divinity,  finding  for 
this  also  warrant  in  misapplied  texts  and  oracles 
without  number.  They  construct  the  Trinity,  or 
at  least  its  outline.  They  set  up  the  Atonement, 
and  make  the  failure  of  the  Crucified  the  end  of 
the  law  and  the  hope  of  the  world.  Thus  these 
few  dreamers,  whose  paralyzed  faculties  construct 
in  a  few  days  out  of  nothing  the  gigantic  scheme 
which  has  exercised  all  the  theologians  of  Chris¬ 
tendom,  go  forth  with  an  invincible  enthusiasm 
begotten  of  disaster  to  try  it  upon  the  world,  and 
by  a  marvel  greater  than  its  own  origin,  to  suc¬ 
ceed.  Verily  this  is  the  romance  of  history, 
where  the  conjuror’s  wand  plays  havoc  with  all 
reality,  and  laws  of  nature,  to  escape  miracle,  are 
so  twisted  off  their  hinges  as  henceforth  to  lose  all 
power  of  being  shut  or  opened.  We  thus  see 
the  strength  of  the  Gospel  record  when  unbelief 
is  challenged,  instead  of  mere  endless  doubts,  to 
produce  its  own  solution,  and  this  poor  incoherent 
phantom  starts  from  the  grave  to  take  the  place 
and  do  the  work  of  Him  who  was  dead,  and  is 
alive  for  evermore. 


24 


CHRIST  THE  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE 


II. 

Having  thus  briefly  surveyed  the  massive  foun¬ 
dation  of  proof  on  which  the  reality  of  the  time- 
hallowed  gospel  Story  reposes,  and  which  all  the 
criticism  and  reconstructive  hypotheses  of  our  own 
age  only  bring  into  greater  prominence,  let  us,  as 
our  second  topic,  endeavor  to  show  how  the  per¬ 
sonal  Christ  —  living,  sinless,  divine  — mingles  ) 
with  and  adds  strength  to  every  argument  for  the 
truth  of  Christianity. 

I.  If  we  begin  with  evidences  resting  on  divine 
power  as  bearing  witness  to  Christianity,  Christ  is 
the  visible  centre  of  them  all.  The  miracles  of 
the  Old  Testament  all  lead  up  to  him;  those  of 
the  New  all  stream  forth  from  his  own  person  or 
through  his  messengers.  A  miracle  may  seem 
detached  or  difficult ;  but  if  connected  with  the 
great  central  miracle  of  the  Incarnation,  it  ac¬ 
quires  credibility  and  value.  It  is  an  earlier  or 
later  stroke  in  the  same  battle;  and  if  the  Son  of 
God  be  really  in  the  field,  it  is  not  wonderful  that 
higher  than  mortal  weapons  should  gather  round 
him.  The  harmony  between  the  inner  and  outer 
miracle  is  here  complete ;  and  when  the  rod  of 
Christ’s  strength  strikes  the  rock  of  natural  law 
it  is  only  reasonable  that  it  should  ‘  ‘  turn  the  rock 


Of'  CHRISTIANITY.  25 

into  a  standing  water,  the  flint  into  a  fountain  of 
waters.  ’  ’ 

The  same  consideration  gathers  up  to  this  ul¬ 
timate  centre  the  argument  from  the  success  of 
Christianity.  Though  not  the  same  display  of 
power  without  means  as  absolute  miracle  is,  this 
has  been  always  justly  reckoned  a  virtual  and 
practical  miracle.  The  argument  has  force  when 
looked  on  simply  as  the  working  of  God,  through 
whom  the  weapons  of  this  warfare  become  mighty; 
but  at  every  point  it  is  enhanced  by  connection 
wdth  Christ,  as  presiding  over  the  struggle  and 
wielding  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  The 
sign  of  the  cross,  as  in  the  vision  of  Constantine, 
whatever  we  think  of  that  tradition,  by  stamping 
itself  on  all  Christian  victories  gives  them  a  more 
visibly  divine  character.  The  contrast  between 
original  weakness  and  ultimate  triumph  is  more 
marked.  The  purity  of  the  means  —  and  with 
pure  means  alone  Christianity  connects  this  argu¬ 
ment — recalls  the  simplicity,  humility,  and  right¬ 
eousness  of  the  Founder  of  this  kingdom.  His 
church  breaks  forth  as  the  expansion  of  his  own 
power,  silent  and  gradual,  but  invincible ;  and 
thus  there  is  a  unity  in  the  process,  which  can  be 
felt  not  only  by  Christians,  but  by  unbelievers, 
and  the  secret  conviction  is  inspired  by  the  march 
of  history  that  all  things  are  put  under  his  feet. 


26  CHRIST  the;  central  EVIDENCE 

So  is  it  witli  that  argument  from  personal  ex¬ 
perience.  Though  it  cannot  be  directly  pleaded 
with  unbelievers,  it  is  with  Christians  the  most 
signal  of  all  acts  of  divine  power,  and  renews  in 
every  Christian  life  the  deepest  side  of  the  miracle 
of  Damascus.  For  there  is  here  contact  with  the 
personal  Jesus  in  his  risen  life  and  greatness,  in 
his  power  to  stamp  his  image  and  to  convey  his 
will,  so  that  this  most  subduing  of  all  evidences, 
prolonged  into  the  manifold  experiences^  of  a 
Christian  life,  and  carrying  with  it  a  sense  of  lib¬ 
erty,  peace,  and  nearness  to  God  otherwise  wholly 
unattainable,  so  visibly  centres  in  Christ  that  it 
cannot  even  be  conceived  of  without  him,  and  is 
really  the  conscious  reception  and  reproduction  of 
his  own  life  and  character.  Nor  is  this  argument 
so  incommunicable  as  has  sometimes  been  alleged; 
for' Christian  experience  has  a  power  of  irradiation 
even  into  dark  and  unsightly  places;  and  wher¬ 
ever  it  goes  it  bears  with  it  not  only  something  of 
rebuke  in  Christ’s  name,  but  of  hope  to  the  most 
outcast  and  fallen  that  the  dead  may  yet  live 
again  and  the  lost  be  found. 

2.  The  evidences  of  Christianity  that  depend 
on  divine  knowledge  as  exerted  on  the  side  of  the 
gospel,  are  all  equally  related  to  Christ.  Timit- 
ing  ourselves  here  to  the  evidence  from  prophecy 
(though  other  indications  of  supernatural  knowl- 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


27 


edge  are  found  in  Scripture),  it  is  remarkable  how 
natural  prophecy  becomes,  as  well  as  how  much 
more  forcible,  when  it  ceases  to  be  a  mere  heap 
of  divinations  or  unconnected  oracles,  and  points 
according  to  a  settled  and  gradually  developed 
plan  to  a  central  person  in  history — the  divine 
Saviour.  The  greater,  purer,  brighter  we  make 
Christ,  the  more  does  the  prophetic  argument  gain 
at  every  point.  The  Christ  of  the  rationalist  re¬ 
pels  prophecy,  not  only  from  the  prejudice  against 
the  supernatural,  but  quite  as  much  because  there 
is  nothing  in  such  a  Christ  to  attract  the  eye  of 
the  whole  world  from  the  beginning.  It  is  like 
kindling  a  star  in  the  sky,  and  bringing  the  wise 
men  all  the  way  to  Bethlehem  to  show  them  little, 
if  anything,  greater  than  themselves ;  and  hence 
rationalism  cannot  for  very  shame  accept  the  pro¬ 
phetic  theory,  but  must  seal  up  every  ray  of  ear¬ 
lier  Scripture  that  seems  to  point  so  far  forward, 
and  parcel  out  all  the  greatness  that  would  natu¬ 
rally  be  concentrated  in  Christ  amid  all  conceiv¬ 
able  human  subjects  possible,  with  whom  the 
pijophets  are  supposed  to  have  begun  and  ended. 

It  calls  this  guesswork  of  a  human  sagacity  or 
longing,  groping  all  round  a  limited  hori:5on,  and 
arrested  everywhere  by  the  local  and  temporal,  a 
reasonable  scheme.  Yet  it  is  put  to  sore  distress, 
not  only  because  the  grand  and  sublime  visions  of 


28  CHRIST  THK  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE 

the  prophets  burst  at  every  point  through  this 
narrow  environment,  but  also  because  rationalism 
itself  wants  larger  anticipations  of  a  coming  De¬ 
liverer  to  operate  with,  so  as  even  fantastically 
and  unreally  to  create  the  picture  of  a  great  fu¬ 
ture,  and  a  great  world-monarch  in  the  heart  of 
it,  which  might  in  so  far  account  for  Christianity 
by  misread  and  over-colored  fulfilment. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  perplexing  problems  of 
the  rationalism  of  our  time,  unable  as  it  is  to  be¬ 
lieve  in  prophecy,  but  compelled  to  believe  in 
anticipation,  yet  driven  back  from  the  anticipa¬ 
tion  in  its  fulness,  and  torturing  it  at  every  point 
to  speak  with  bated  breath  lest  it  should  openly 
proclaim  Christ.  Nor  is  this  its  only  affliction; 
for  whereas  by  the  uniformity  of  nature  every 
religion  should,  like  Christianity,  have  had  an¬ 
other  as  its  herald,  and  even  every  great  person¬ 
age  a  train  of  precursors  to  have,  as  in  the  case  of 
Christ,  opened  his  way  and  forecast  his  history, 
the  phenomenon  stands  here  alone,  and  its  soli¬ 
tude  cannot  be  accounted  for. 

In  striking  contrast  to  this  felt  littleness  of 
rationalism,  when  its  Christ  is  seen  through  the 
inverted  end  of  the  telescope,  is  the  greatness  of 
the  ordinary  Christianity,  when  the  anticipative 
world  of  prophecy  comes  into  its  view,  shaded, 
abrupt,  and  often  impenetrable,  but  with  a  light. 


OK  CHRISTIANITY. 


29  - 

a  harmoii}^,  and  a  grandeur  sufficient  not  only  to 
warrant  its  own  existence,  but  to  attest  the  stu¬ 
pendous  reality  that  was  to  come.  It  would  have 
been  possible  to  have  given  forth  real  prophecy 
that  was  remote  from  Christ.  Some  of  it,  in  one 
sense,  is  so;  as,  for  example,  the  predictions  bear¬ 
ing  on  some  of  the  ancient  nations.  But  the 
strength  of  prophecy  lies  in  its  chain  of  references 
to  Christ,  from  the  first  mention  of  the  “  Seed  of 
the  woman,”  to  the  virgin-born  Immanuel;  from 
the  Sufferer,  whose  heel  is  bruised  in  terms  of  the 
earliest  promise,  to  the  ‘  ‘  Man  of  sorrows  ’  ’  in  the 
fifty- third  of  Isaiah;  and  from  the  peaceful  Caw- 
giver  of  a  yet  uncrowned  tribe,  to  the  heir  of 
David,  who  enters  the  long -established  seat  of 
rule  as  a  king.  Even  the  predictions  that  bear 
on  the  church  of  God  and  its  universal  progress 
are  but  the  sequel  to  those  which  foretell  the  per¬ 
sonal  Christ,  and  they  then  reflect  the  light  of  his 
exaltation;  nor  can  the  judgments  on  the  Jewish 
nation  be  dissociated,  as  the  depth  of  their  fall  is 
but  the  measure  of  the  grace  and  truth  that  were 
in  Christ,  and  for  rejecting  which  they  were  to  be 
cast  away. 

Thus  centralized  in  Christ,  not  only  sinless, 
but  divine,  and  in  the  fullest  sense  a  Sacrifice  and 
a  Saviour,  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  has 
a  meaning,  a  coherence,  a  majestic  onward  move- 


30  CHRIST  the;  central  evidence 

ment  unparalleled  in  literature.  But  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  it  is  isolated  and  detached  from  Christ,  the 
more  does  all  sink  into  twilight.  When  he  is  de¬ 
nied,  prophecy  becomes  a  mere  ignis  fatuus  made 
up  of  vain  and  abortive  fancies,  flickering  in  the 
wastes  of  a  history  as  flat  and  stagnant  in  the  Old 
Testament  as  in  the  New,  where  indeed  there  is 
neither  old  nor  new,  but,  under  the  boasted  name 
of  evolution,  an  eternal  sameness,  and  the  reign  of 
the  dreary  inevitable  law,  ‘  ‘  Bx  nihilo  nihil  fit.  ’  ’ 

3.  It  is  not  difficult  to  show  how  the  mass  of 
evidence  in  Christianity,  that  builds  upon  the 
divine  wisdom  as  shining  forth  in  it,  must  also 
gather  around  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus 
Christ.  If  the  argument  from  design  leads  us  to 
trace  a  Designer  in  nature,  it  does  so  not  less  in 
the  economy  of  revelation.  Christianity  has  a 
work  to  do  or  a  problem  to  solve;  and  though  the 
unbeliever  cannot  enter  into  this  survey  as  the 
believer  can,  yet  even  he  may  see  contrivance  in 
salvation,  and  be  self-condemned  for  rejecting  it. 

Now  it  is  exactly  in  relation  to  Christ  that  this 
argument  from  adaptation  comes  in.  The  union 
in  Christ  of  divinity  and  humanity  is  not  a  mere 
theological  dogma  or  mystery,  but  an  intelligible 
and  practical  arrangement  for  gaining  the  ends  of 
salvation.  Every  one  can  see  that  if  such  a  con¬ 
junction  be  possible,  however  the  abstract  theism 


OK  CHRISTIANITY. 


31 

of  Judaism,  of  Mohammedanism,  and,  we  may 
add,  of  a  rationalised  Christianity,  recoils  from  it, 
there  are  many  beautiful  fitnesses  instantly  im¬ 
pressed  upon  any  saving  scheme.  The  very  ap¬ 
pearance  of  Divinity  on  the  field  indicates  the 
greatness  and  danger  of  the  crisis  produced  by  sin; 
and  this,  being  thus  laid  down  to  start  with,  in 
harmony  with  the  deepest  voice  of  conscience, 
carries  the  resources  of  Deity  everywhere — its 
strength  and  its  tenderness — to  meet  at  successive 
points  the  exigency,  and  to  afford  the  guarantee 
that  these  shall  not  be  applied  in  vain. 

While  the  higher  nature  of  Christ  thus  yields 
an  unlimited  reserve  of  power  and  grace,  it  is  seen 
to  be  fitting  that  human  sympathies  and  organs 
should  also  mingle  in  the  work  of  man’s  redemp¬ 
tion.  How  these  were  to  be  harmonised  we  could 
not  have  told  beforehand ;  indeed  we  can  hardly 
tell  now  that  the  God-man  is  before  us.  But  that 
in  this  incarnation — the  central  and  fundamental 
fact  of  Christianity — there  is  a  wealth  and  a  ful¬ 
ness  of  adaptation,  otherwise  altogether  inconceiv¬ 
able,  to  remedial  ends,  the  consent  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  church  in  all  ages  attests.  The  so-called  offi¬ 
ces  of  Christ  are  filled  in  with  a  grandeur  and 
completeness  self-evidently  true.  Revelation  rises 
to  its  highest  point  in  one  who  is  not  merely  a 
messenger,  but  a  partaker  of  divinity.  Vicarious 


32  CHRIST  THE  CENTRA!,  EVIDENCE 

suffering  for  sin  becomes  possible  in  human  form, 
yet  clothed  with  transcendent  and  illimitable 
merit.  A  universal  dominion  founded  on  grace 
enchains  the  affections,  while  it  transforms  the 
lives  of  its  subjects.  These  provisions  of  Christi¬ 
anity  strike  all  fair  and  open  minds  by  their  wis¬ 
dom  not  less  than  by  their  grandeur  and  tender¬ 
ness;  and  though  they  are  resisted  and  overborne 
by  the  very  evil  they  are  designed  to  remedy,  they 
not  less  leave  their  witness,  and  widely  diffuse  the 
secret,  though,  alas !  in  how  many  cases  ineffec¬ 
tual,  conviction  that  this  religion  is  divine. 

But  is  it  not  clear  that  the  strength  of  this 
evidence  is  derived  from  the  dependence  of  this 
whole  system  on  Christ?  It  is  made  up  of  the 
power  and  sympathy  of  his  incarnation,  of  the  ef¬ 
ficacy  of  his  sacrifice,  of  the  perfection  of  his  ex¬ 
ample,  and  of  the  influence  of  his  reign.  And  to 
deny  that  Christ,  as  he  moves  in  the  Gospel  his¬ 
tory,  is  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  all,  and  to  re¬ 
solve  all,  were  that  possible,  into,  some  more  ob¬ 
scure  and  transcendental  action  of  the  general  di¬ 
vine  will,  would  be  to  eclipse  this  whole  argu¬ 
ment  from  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God,  and 
could  only  be  exceeded  in  disaster  by  the  denial 
of  the  end,  not  less  than  of  this  grand  effectual 
means,  so  as  to  leave  only  a  morality  and  a  bare 
naturalism  as  the  last  issue  of  the  so-called  gospel 


OF  CHRISTIANITY.  33 

dispensation,  without  anything  of  redemption  at 
all. 

The  wisdom  that  shines  in  the  remedial  pro¬ 
visions  of  Christianity  is  not  less  discernible  in  its 
history.  Redemption  grows  from  the  faintest 
outline  as  a  revelation  to  the  perfect  day.  The 
history  of  the  world  unconsciously  prepares  for  it. 
A  special  people  rise  up  to  guard  quite  as  much 
as  to  develop  it.  Every  step  in  their  history  is 
singular,  and  the  occasional  periods  of  it  that 
want  the  miraculous  are  like  the  silent  pauses 
out  of  which  it  is  again  born.  When  Christ’s  ad¬ 
vent  has  filled  the  old  channels  to  overflowing,  it 
has  to  burst  upon  the  world  ;  and  this  law  marks 
all  its  subsequent  expansions,  that  it  is  a  return 
of  the  life-blood  to  the  heart  that  sends  it  forth 
again  in  fresh  and  ever-widening  diffusion. 
There  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  all  the  succes¬ 
sive  steps  of  Jewish  history,  from  Abraham  to 
Moses,  from  Moses  to  David,  from  David  to  the 
close  of  prophecy,  and  from  the  close  of  proj^hecy 
to  the  Incarnation,  lead  up  to  Christ,  and  become 
epochs  from  their  relation  to  him.  So,  also,  if 
the  history  of  the  Christian  church  teaches  any 
lesson,  it  is  that  the  recovery  of  clearness,  of 
power,  of  victory  lies  in  his  name,  and  that  the 
greatness  of  every  truly  great  age,  in  doctrine  or 

in  work,  lies  in  the  prominence  of  that  name. 

3 


34  CHRIST  the:  central  evidence 

How  could  this  be  unless  Christ  were  the  key 
to  the  whole  of  this  progress,  for  progress,  in  spite 
of  unaccountable  stops,  and  even  recessions,  we 
must  call  it;  and  is  there  not  here  in  the  history, 
as  truly  as  in  the  doctrine,  a  veiled  yet  discovera¬ 
ble  wisdom,  which  centres  in  the  supernatural 
Christ,  and  shows  him  to  be  alike  the  moving 
force  and  the  last  end  of  this  apparently  untrace- 
able  but  really  all-including  system?  The  evi¬ 
dences  from  wisdom  in  Christianity  and  in  con¬ 
nection  with  it  may  need  reflection  ;  but  they  are 
among  the  most  solid,  appealing  to  minds  like 
Pascal  and  Butler,  like  Edwards  and  Neander, 
that  can  take  in  the  sweep  of  a  wide,  though  in 
many  parts  inscrutable,  scheme ;  and  of  all  the 
light  that  is  in  it — more  than  enough  to  counter¬ 
balance  the  darkness— the  origin  is  to  be  found  in 
Christ. 

4.  We  now  come  to  the  fourth  and  crowning 
argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  that  drawn 
from  the  reflection  in  it  of  the  moral  attributes  of 
holiness  and  love  in  God.  Here,  preeminently,  the 
argument  is  wrought  up  with,  and  centres  in,  the 
life  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  have  here,  to 
start  with,  the  unspeakable  advantage  of  a  person¬ 
al  God  in  whom  the  moral  law  is  enshrined. 
This  is  carried  over  from  Judaism,  with  its  faith 
alike  in  Jehovah  and  in  the  Decalogue;  and  thus 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


35 


religion  and  morality  spring  up  together.  A 
shadow  of  this  is  found  in  the  teaching  of  Plato, 
who  makes  virtue  the  imitation  of  God,  and  in 
Kant,  who  makes  it  obedience  to  sovereign  will  : 
but  in  the  one,  the  element  of  law  is  too  feeble; 
in  the  other,  the  personality  of  God  is  lost  in  mor¬ 
al  order. 

More  wonderful  perhaps  is  the  glimpse  of 
Plato,  amid  the  darkness  of  paganism,  into  the 
indissoluble  union  between  morality  and  religion, 
than  the  rediscovery  by  Kant,  amid  the  obscured 
light  of  Christianity,  of  duty  as  an  eternal,  invio¬ 
lable  law.  But  Christianity  starts  with  both  a 
personal  God  and  a  moral  law,  and  with  both  in 
their  deepest  principles  and  demands,  which  Christ 
has  then  to  fulfil.  He  has  to  resemble  or  glorify 
God,  not  by  the  harmony  of  ordinary  obedience, 
but  by  the  bearing  of  penalty,  for  there  is  no 
law  in  the  universe  if  penalty  can  be  lightly  set 
aside. 

Those  have  totally  mistaken  the  life  of  Christ, 
who,  like  Renan,  have  made  it  mainly  genial  or 
idyllic;  or,  like  others,  have  seen  in  it  only  the 
evolution  in  normal  circumstances  of  moral  ex¬ 
cellence.  The  solitude,  the  shadow,  the  cry,  pro¬ 
claim  the  burden  and  the  woe — a  heart  filled 
with  all  human  discords  and  sorrows  not  its  own, 
yet  accepting  all  with  meekness  and  love — a 


36  CHRIST  the:  central  EVIDENCE 

meekness  and  love  that  bow  to  the  stroke  of  right¬ 
eousness,  and  feel  that  to  avert  it  from  man  is 
the  greatest  of  divine  tasks  and  favors.  Thus 
the  color  of  Christ’s  virtue  is  all  sacrificial — red 
with  the  mark  of  blood,  and  yet  transcendently 
greater  than  had  it  borne  other  wrong  and  con¬ 
tumely,  but  not  the  sin  of  the  world.  Out  of  the 
depths  of  this  crushed  and  lonely  heart  there 
rises  to  heaven  the  fragrance  of  an  unutterable 
devotion  to  God,  and  of  an  unfathomable  com¬ 
passion  to  man — a  purity,  a  tenderness,  a  strength 
of  sublime  endurance,  which  float  their  influence 
downward  through  all  time,  and  fill  eternity  with 
their  memories.  Erelong  it  is  seen  that  this  life 
and  death,  thus  construed,  are  worthier  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  adjust  themselves  better  to  the  level  of 
incarnation,  than  any  other  achievement  of  vir¬ 
tue;  and  while  in  the  lower  ranges  of  this  history 
all  human  graces  and  sympathies  find  a  home 
and  a  shelter,  it  is  in  this  aspect  that  it  towers  to 
the  very  firmament,  and  sends  down  its  floods  of 
moral  influence  to  make  all  things  new. 

It  is  the  penal  sufferings  of  the  Lamb  of  God, 
and  not  the  brightness  of  his  other  moral  features, 
that  strike  the  heart  with  the  pangs  of  repent¬ 
ance,  that  melt  the  heart  while  they  break  it, 
and  in  reproducing  something  of  his  own  agony 
in  the  soul  originate  a  moral  crisis  there  which 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


37 


issues  not  in  death,  but  in  life.  Then  the  at¬ 
tractions  of  obedience  enchain  the  heart,  when 
the  sense  of  terror  and  of  shame  has  given  place 
to  gratitude  and  moral  admiration;  and  the  imi¬ 
tation  of  Christ,  so  awful  and  even  intolerable, 
when  it  lays  upon  the  soul  a  new  bondage  of 
duty,  becomes  easy  and  irresistible  when  it  is  the 
effusion  of  love.  No  heart  will  open  till  the  bar 
of  guilt  be  first  burst  asunder;  and  though  there 
be  also  a  key  needed  to  turn  the  lock  by  which 
human  nature  and  habit  are  fixed  in  evil,  it  is 
Christ  who,  by  the  power  of  his  Spirit,  can  ac¬ 
complish  this  further  extrication,  yet  not  by  other 
instrumental  means  than  by  the  lesson  of  his 
atoning  life  and  death,  divinely  urged  and  made 
the  watchword  of  moral  freedom. 

Thus  a  perfect  moral  example,  at  the  very  point 
where  it  reaches  its  highest  perfection,  begins  by 
its  own  surpassing  charm  of  condescension  and 
tenderness  to  work  on  the  lowest  and  most  fallen, 
and  to  invite  them  up  the  steeps  of  its  own  gran¬ 
deur  and  purity;  whence  we  see  the  falsehood  of 
the  current  idea,  that  the  example  which  is  most 
like  ourselves,  and  the  least  raised  above  our  own 
struggles  and  falls,  is  the  best,  at  least  for  begin¬ 
ners  in  the  race  of  holiness.  The  whole  experience 
of  the  Christian  church  refutes  this.  Who  have 
acted  with  the  greatest  power  on  our  degraded 


38  CHRIST  THE  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE 

and  criminal  classes?  Not  their  own  compan¬ 
ions,  striving  like  themselves  to  raise  their  heads 
above  the  wide  surrounding  sea  of  evil;  but  the 
holiest  men  and  women,  who  have  come  to  them 
as  ministering  angels,  who  have  recalled  the 
image  of  good  in  all  its  loveliness,  and  by  associa¬ 
ting  all  with  self-sacrificing  kindness  have  given 
them  the  hope  and  the  possibility  of  escape,  other¬ 
wise  almost  as  remote  as  if  they  had  been  aban¬ 
doned  for  ever.  Of  this  law  of  the  attraction  of 
the  holy — if  it  be  supremely  kind,  still  more  if 
it  bring  the  news  of  pardon — Christ  is  the  limit; 
and  hence  as  of  old  to  the  publicans  and  sinners, 
and  to  all  the  wide  family  of  the  outcast  and  the 
miserable,  he  stretches  down  his  loving  arms; 
and  high  as  he  rises  above  them,  he  can  still 
reach  their  level,  and  lift  them  upward  with 
the  call,  “Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and 
are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.” 

It  is  a  mighty  proof  of  the  blending  of  divine 
holiness  and  love  in  Christ’s  remedial  work,  that 
his  example  never  shifts  away  from  those  earliest 
lessons  of  the  cross  which  first  give  peace  to  the 
troubled  conscience,  and  then  awake  the  trem¬ 
bling  throb  of  a  new  and  heaven-born  existence. 
Christ  has  nothing  greater  to  show,  nothing  more 
advanced  to  inculcate  in  the  wide  range  of  his 
own  moral  obedience.  There  has  been  a  school 


OK  CHRISTIANITY. 


39 


even  of  Christian  theology  and  morality  which 
has  hastened  away  from  Christ’s  death  to  his  life; 
as  if  in  the  region  of  moral  precept,  whether 
more  rare  or  more  familiar,  when  the  awful  eclipse 
of  suffering  were  lifted  off,  divine  excellence 
shone  out  with  a  more  winning  and  cheering 
ray.  This  is,  however,  to  forget  that  the  lofti¬ 
est  virtues  of  Christ  start  from  the  vale  of  humili¬ 
ation;  that  the  eye  which  reads  in  his  sacrifice 
afresh  the  promise  of  pardon  receives  with  equal¬ 
ly  new  welcome  the  quick  succeeding  charge, 
“Follow  thou  me!”  and  that,  while  every  vir¬ 
tue  of  Christ  has  its  place  and  its  lesson,  those 
that  come  associated  with  the  tenderest  memories 
alike  of  his  life  and  of  ours  must  wing  the  soul 
nearest  to  heaven. 

Here,  then,  is  the  problem  for  all  moralists, 
reformers,  teachers  of  the  world,  who  deny  the 
divine  Christ.  By  what  miracle  of  selection 
were  the  Bible  writers  who  have  drawn  that  stu¬ 
pendous  picture  led  to  connect  all  the  transform¬ 
ing  power  of  their  S3^stem,  not  with  separate  pre¬ 
cepts  or  laws  of  God,  but  with  a  living  Saviour ! 
And  then  how  came  it  that  when  the  more  bright, 
serene,  unshaded  virtues  of  his  life  appeared  to 
demand  a  more  exhilarating  and  joyous  pursuit,  ~ 
they  with  sure  instinct,  while  not  neglecting 
these,  gave  them  the  second  place,  and  found  the 


40 


CHRIST  THE  CENTRAL  EVIDENCE 


deepest,  purest,  most  unfailing  well  of  all  moral 
aspiration  and  impulse  beneath  the  dark,  and  as 
it  might  even  seem  repulsive,  shade  of  the  cross 
and  of  the  sepulchre!  To  this  day  this  is  to  the 
world  a  mystery  and  a  stumbling-block.  But  the 
laws  of  Christianity  are  not  on  that  account  sus¬ 
pended  ;  their  authority  is  not  overthrown  :  “I  am 
crucified  with  Christ;  nevertheless,  I  live.” 

The  last  wonder  of  Christianity,  then,  as  a 
remedy,  is  that  it  sets  forth  in  God,  and  in  Christ 
as  the  image  of  God,  the  supreme  demands,  at  first 
sight  irreconcilable,  yet  truly  reconciled,  of  holi¬ 
ness  and  of  love.  Amid  the  storm  and  surge  of 
sin,  the  holiness  of  God  rises  like  a  frowning  wall 
to  shut  up  every  avenue  to  the  regions  of  safety, 
and  to  wreck  and  dash  in  pieces  every  human 
hope.  It  is  as  when  Ulysses,  flung  from  the  bro¬ 
ken  ship,  was  tossed  day  after  day  upon  the  boil¬ 
ing  ocean,  more  afraid  even  of  the  breakers  which 
revealed  the  land  than  of  the  billows  which 
formed  the  peril  of  the  sea.*  It  is  the  picture 
of  a  soul  driven  by  the  resistless  tide  of  guilt 
against  the  eternal  laws  which  guard  the  uni¬ 
verse.  But  at  length  a  rent  is  opened  in  the 
mighty  barrier,  where  the  gentle  stream  divides 
even’  the  encircling  rock ;  and  by  this  unlooked- 
for  inlet  safety  and  shelter  are  found.  It  is  the 

Odyssey  V.  441. 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


41 


emblem  of  heaven’s  greatest  discovery — of  the 
soul’s  best  deliverance,  the  victory  of  love,  not  by 
breaking  down  and  overturning  justice,  but  by 
opening  a  pathway  through  it  to  salvation  as 
wonderful  as  it  is  easy  and  effectual. 

Here,  then,  is  the  summation  of  this  cumula¬ 
tive  argument,  where  every  other  evidence  con¬ 
verges  to  the  life  and  character  of  Jesus  Christ. 
What  other  religion  has  such  a  mass  of  evidence 
in  its  favor,  historic,  prophetic,  doctrinal,  moral  ? 
What  other  religion,  if  it  had  any  to  adduce, 
could  centralize  all  in  the  person  of  its  founder? 
Not  Confucianism  ;  not  Buddhism  (attractive 
though  in  one  sense  the  record  of  its  founder  be) ; 
not  Brahminism,  which  has  no  commanding  per¬ 
sonality  in  its  history ;  and  as  little  Mohamme¬ 
danism.  These  religions  lie  mainly  outside  the 
lives  of  their  human  authors.  Why  did  not  their 
authors  in  this  way  make  these  religions  more 
strong,  interesting,  and  likely  to  endure?  They 
were  as  able  on  human  principles  as  the  original 
or  secondary  founders  of  Christianity,  who  here 
also  strike  clear  off  from  philosophy,  for  what 
philosophy  ever  thought  of  constituting  itself  out 
of  the  biography  of  Socrates  or  Zeno,  of  Descartes 
or  Hegel  ?  If  it  had  been  a  failure  in  the  history 
of  religion,  the  experiment  would  still  have  been 
singular.  But  it  has  been  the  secret  of  success, 


42  CHRIST  the:  CKNTRAI.  EVIDENCE 

and  could  not  fail  to  be  so ;  for  a  religion  witli 
the  living  God  in  the  heart  of  it  could  not  rise  to 
anything  higher,  more  unchanging,  more  attrac¬ 
tive  than  its  one  incessant  theme  of  Divine  Re¬ 
demption,  nor  could  the  gracious  Providence 
which  presided  over  its  origin  fall  short  of  ma¬ 
king  its  development  and  career  as  effectual, 
while  as  unexampled,  as  its  birth. 

When  we  speak  of  the  wonderfulness  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  we  must  not  neglect  the  future.  It  only 
among  religions  has  at  once  an  Alpha  and  an 
Omega.  The  future  alone  shall  bring  out  its 
great  proportions.  It  is  said  that  in  our  century 
for  the  first  time  the  master- works  of  Handel  are 
fully  disclosed  as  he  conceived  them.  Their  airs 
penetrate  through  vaster  spaces  ;  their  choruses 
are  borne  up  by  mightier  instruments  and  voices. 
So  shall  it  be,  if  the  comparison  may  be  permit¬ 
ted,  with  that  grander  “Messiah ”  which  is  now, 
amid  incredible  struggle,  breaking  out  in  living 
music  throughout  the  world.  We  have  been 
long  in  the  earlier  parts,  awed,  no  doubt,  and 
cheered  by  the  glorious  strains,  “  Unto  us  a  child 
is  born;”  “He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shep¬ 
herd  “  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor but 
sunk  also  to  the  deepest  minors,  “Thy  rebuke 
hath  broken  my  heart,”  and  perplexed  in  our 
strongest  faith  by  the  tremendous  jars  and  dis- 


OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


43 


cords,  “All  they  that  see  him  laugh  him  to 
scorn.”  But  there  shall  come,  like  the  sweep  of 
innumerable  armies,  or  the  march  of  light,  the 
unbounded,  resistless  advance,  “Their  line  is 
gone  out  into  all  lands;”  and  the  stupendous  all- 
triumphant  chorus  shall  shake  earth  and  heaven, 
“  Hallelujah,  for  the  Tord  God  omnipotent  reign- 
eth  !”  In  these  “great  voices”  may  it  be  given 
to  us,  not  without  earlier  note  of  preparation,  to 
bear  a  part;  and  may  it  be,  though  with  broken 
utterance,  yet  with  true  and  growing  concord, 
that  we — all  unworthy — now  rehearse  this  grand¬ 
est  burst  of  time  and  prelude  of  eternity  :  The 
kingdom  of  this  world  has  become  the  kingdom 
of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ,  and  he  shall  reign 
for  ever  and  ever. 


THE 


UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER 


OF  THE 

Christ  OF  THE  Gospels 

A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY, 


REV.  C.  A.  ROW,  M.  A. 


ARGUMENT  OF  THE  TRACT. 


Nothing  is  assumed  but  what  is  admitted  by  be¬ 
lievers  and  unbelievers  alike,  viz.,  the  existence  of  the 
Gospels,  that  they  contain  the  portraiture  of  a  great 
character  which  is  the  product  of  their  conjoint  con¬ 
tents,  that  the  parts  constitute  a  unity,  and  that  the  first 
three  Gospels  at  least  portray  the  same  character  from 
different  points  of  view;  and  the  conclusion  is  drawn 
that  this  unity  is  only  consistent  with  their  being  the  de¬ 
lineation  of  a  historical  reality.  None  of  the  negative 
theories  propounded  to  account  for  the  Gospels  attempt 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  portraiture.  The  two 
factors  in  the  character,  the  divine  and  human,  are  in¬ 
separably  united,  and  are  marked  by  the  same  moral 
tone.  The  blending  of  benevolence  and  holiness,  the 
loftiest  self-assertion  and  the  deepest  humility,  and  the 
exquisite  shading  into  one  another  of  the  other  portions 
of  the  character,  are  such  that  it  is  inconceivable  it  could 
have  been  independently  portrayed  by  a  number  of  my- 
thologists.  The  moral  teaching  of  Jesus  is  so  much 
above  the  age  that  it  could  not  have  been  invented  by 
the  originators  of  the  legends  which  are  supposed  to 
have  formed  the  materials  of  the  gospel  narratives. 
The  moral  teaching  grows  out  of  the  miraculous  narra¬ 
tive  in  such  a  manner  that  the  two  cannot  be  separated. 
The  tone  of  the  miraculous  narratives  and  of  the  teach¬ 
ing  growing  out  of  them  is  as  lofty  as  the  tone  of  the 
didactic  portion.  The  theory  of  tendencies  is  refuted.’ 
The  identity  of  the  Synoptic  and  the  Johannine  Christ 
is  vindicated,  and  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that  the  only 
alternative  which  satisfies  all  the  conditions  of  the  case 
is  that  the  portraiture  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  the 
delineation  of  a  historical  reality  and  not  an  ideal  cre¬ 
ation. 


THE 


UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER 

OF  THE 


CHRIST  0P  THE  60SPELS 

A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 


•  '  ♦ 

Our  Ivord’s  person,  work,  and  teaching,  as 
they  are  depicted  in  the  Gospels,  constitute  the 
essence  of  Christianity,  and  render  it  certain,  if 
they  are  historical  realities,  that  Christianity  is  a 
divine  revelation.  Modern  unbelief  has  not  been 
slow  to  perceive  this.  Accordingly,  although  dur¬ 
ing  the  present  century  the  old  plan  of  assailing 
Christianity  through  an  unsparing  criticism  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  pur¬ 
sued  with  the  utmost  vigor,  its  strongest  efforts 
have  been  directed  to  capture  what  really  consti¬ 
tutes  the  key  and  citadel  of  the  Christian  position, 
by  attempting  to  prove  that  the  Gospels,  which 
constitute  our  only*  source  of  information  respect- 

*  It  is  a  most  remarkable  fact  that  tradition  has  failed  to  hand 
down  anything  additional  respecting  our  Lord’s  teaching  and  ac¬ 
tions  beyond  what  is  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  The  whole  of  the 


48  the:  unity  of  thf  character  of 


ing  our  I^ord’s  actions  and  teachings,  are  no  true 
account  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  the  actual  Je¬ 
sus;  but  that  although  they  may  contain  a  few 
grains  of  historical  truth,  the  bulk  of  their  con¬ 
tents  consists  of  a  mass  of  myths,  legends,  and 
ideal  creations  which  the  credulity  and  enthusi¬ 
asm  of  his  followers  have  thrown  around  the  his¬ 
torical  Jesus. 

The  controversy  thus  engendered  extends  over 
a  wide  range  of  subject  matter,  both  in  the  attack 
and  in  the  defence.  The  writer  of  the  present 
tract,  however,  proposes  to  concentrate  the  read¬ 
er’s  attention  on  a  single  point  of  the  evidence, 
under  the  firm  persuasion  that  by  itself  it  is  con¬ 
clusive  of  the  entire  question,  vi^. ,  that  the  unity 
of  the  portraiture  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels 
proves  that  it  is  the  delineation  of  a  historical 

Patristic  writings  contain  only  about  twelve  additional  incidents  of 
this  kind,  and  those  of  a  very  unimportant  character,  two  or  three 
of  which  savor  strongly  of  the  apocryphal.  These  really  add  noth¬ 
ing  to  our  knowledge  of  his  teaching  or  his  actions.  Yet  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  traditionary  reminiscences  of  both  were  current 
as  late  as  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  and  that  they  must 
have  been  rife  at  an  earlier  period.  The  fact  of  their  existence  is 
directly  affirmed  by  Papias  in  the  extract  of  his  writings  which  has 
been  preserved  by  Eusebius.  He  states  that  he  himself  preferred 
these  reminiscences  to  written  documents.  But  his  testimony  is 
hardly  required,  for  the  thing  itself  is  inherently  probable ;  and  the 
authors  of  the  Gospels  themselves  inform  us  that  our  Lord  did  and 
uttered  many  things  which  they  have  not  recorded.  A  recorded 
speech  of  St.  Paul  contains  one  saying,  and  the  remainder  of  the 
New  Testament  not  one.  Respecting  those  Gospels  called  apoc¬ 
ryphal  some  observations  will  be  made  below. 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPELS.  49 

reality,  and  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  theory 
that  it  is  an  ideal  creation. 

The  following  facts,  which  will  form  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  argument,  must  be  admitted  to  be 
true  by  believers  and  unbelievers  alike. 

First.  The  Gospels  exist. 

Secondly.  Whatever  theory  may  be  propound¬ 
ed  respecting  their  origin  or  the  nature  of  their 
contents,  they  contain  the  portraiture  of  a  great 
character,  that  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Ford. 

Thirdly.  That  this  character  is  composed  of  a 
multitude  of  parts,  i.  e. ,  it  is  the  product  of  their 
conjoint  contents. 

Fourthly.  That  the  parts  of  which  it  is  com¬ 
posed  constitute  a  harmonious  unity. 

Fifthly.  That  in  three,  at  least,  of  the  four 
Gospels,  in  St.  Matthew,  St  Mark,  and  St  Luke, 
which  are  commonly  called  the  Synoptics,  and  as 
we  believe,  and  shall  prove  below,  in  the  fourth 
also,  we  possess  different  portraitures  of  the  same 
character,  the  only  difference  between  them 
being  that  they  have  been  taken  by  their  respect¬ 
ive  authors  from  somewhat  different  points  of 
view. 

My  position  is  that  this  unity  is  only  consistent 
with  the  portraiture  having  been  the  delineation 
of  a  historical  reality,  and  is  utterly  inconsistent 

with  the  theory  which  affirms  that  the  Gospels 

4 


50  the  unity  oe  the  character  oe 

consist  of  a  mass  of  myths,  legends,  and  ideal 
creations. 

Now  as  it  is  certain,  whatever  account  may  be 
propounded  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  that  the 
portraiture  exists  in  them,  its  origin  must  be  ac¬ 
counted  for.  I  ask,  therefore,  how  did  it  get 
there  ? 

One  theory  affords  a  rational  account  of  its 
presence,  vi^. ,  that  it  is  the  delineation  of  a  char¬ 
acter  that  actually  existed,  copied  from  the  life. 
This  fully  satisfies  all  the  conditions  of  the  case; 
no  other  theory  which  unbelief  has  succeeded  in 
propounding  affords  an  account  of  its  origin 
which  sound  reason  can  accept. 

What  then  is  the  course  which  modern  unbe¬ 
lievers  have  pursued  in  dealing  with  this  subject? 
While  they  affirm  that  the  Gospels  are  unhistori- 
cal,  they  fully  admit  that  they  are  bound  to  give 
a  rational  account  of  how  they  came  into  exist¬ 
ence.  Numerous  theories,  which  vary  in  detail, 
have  been  propounded  for  this  purpose.  All  that 
is  essential  in  these  may  be  reduced  under  the 
four  following  heads: 

1.  The  Naturalistic  theory,  now  utterly  aban¬ 
doned  as  hopelessly  inadequate. 

2.  The  Mythic  theory. 

3.  The  Legendary  theory. 

’  4.  A  theory  which  for  the  sake  of  brevity  may 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPEES.  51 

be  designated  the  Evolution  theoty,  or  the  theory 
of  tendencies.  This  theor}",  however,  involves  a 
liberal  use  of  myths,  legends,  and  ideal  inven¬ 
tions,  in  the  formation  of  the  materials  out  of 
which  our  present  Gospels  were  composed. 

The  reader  should  observe  that,  singular  to 
say,  these  theories  have  been  propounded,  not  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  the  portraiture,  but  of 
the  narratives,  and  especially  of  its  superhuman 
elements.  Lly  contention  is  that  no  theory  which 
fails  to  give  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
portraiture  can  be  accepted  as  affording  a  true  ac¬ 
count  of  the  origin  of  the  narratives,  for  the  obvi¬ 
ous  reason  that  the  portraiture  is  the  conjoint 
effect  of  the  narratives. 

This  is  obvious,  yet  strange  to  say,  it  is  a  point 
which  has  been  universally  overlooked  by  those 
who  impugn  the  historical  character  of  the  Gos¬ 
pels.  Not  a  single  writer  on  this  side  of  the  ques¬ 
tion,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  has  deemed  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  show  how  it  is  possible,  if  the  Gospels  are 
such  as  they  are  affirmed  to  be,  viz.,  a  mass  of 
myths,  legends,  and  ideal  creations,  for  the  por¬ 
traiture  ever  to  have  got  there;  nor  have  any  of 
them  atte^npted  to  meet  the  objection  which  its 
presence  obviously  suggests  to  the  truth  of  their 
theories.  Yet  it  is  evident  the  theory  w^hich 
fails  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  portraiture 


53  the  unity  ok  the  character  ok 

can  be  no  true  account  of  the  origin  of  tlie  narra¬ 
tives. 

I  now  ask  the  reader’s  attention  to  the  follow¬ 
ing  points  connected  with  the  portraiture,  which 
render  the  theory  that  it  is  an  ideal  creation  sim¬ 
ply  incredible. 

1.  The  Gospels  not  only  contain  the  delinea¬ 
tion  of  a  character,  but  of  one  which  even  a  large 
majority  of  eminent  unbelievers  allow  to  be  the 
greatest  which  has  either  existed  in  fact  or  which 
has  been  invented  by  fiction.  It  also  possesses 
this  remarkable  characteristic,  that  it  is  capable 
of  evoking  the  admiration  alike  of  the  most  sim¬ 
ple-minded  and  the  most  intellectual  of  men.  It 
is,  in  fact,  the  most  catholic  of  characters,  and 
one  which  speaks  more  powerfully  than  any  other 
to  the  higher  affections  of  man. 

2.  It  is  evidently  not  an  artificial  creation, 
such  as  we  meet  with  in  ordinary  historians  and 
poets.  These  are  in  the  habit  of  giving  elaborate 
delineations  of  the  characters  of  their  heroes  which 
are  the  embodiment  of  the  views  of  their  charac¬ 
ters  which  the  writers  designed  to  impress  on  the 
minds  of  their  readers.  Their  characters  are  not 
the  combined  result  of  the  facts  which  they  nar¬ 
rate,  but  are  the  artificial  creations  of  the  poets  or 
historians.  To  take  an  example.  The  works  of 
kord  Clarendon,  or  Macaulay,  abound  with  delin- 


TIIK  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPETS. 


53 


eations  of  this  description;  but  they  are  pictures 
which  are  the  creations  of  the  historian.  Precise¬ 
ly  similar  is  it  with  the  poets.  Their  characters 
are  artificial  elaborations  out  of  their  own  con¬ 
sciousness,  or  aided  by  such  historical  materials  as 
they  possessed,  the  details  of  which  are  filled  up 
and  colored  by  the  imagination.  The  point  to 
which  I  ask  the  reader’s  attention  is  that  all  such 
delineations  are  evidently  artificial. 

But  in  the  evangelists,  this  artificial  character 
is  absolutely  wanting.  This  is  palpable  to  every 
reader.  Nothing  can  be  more  artless  than  the 
structure  of  the  Gospels.  It  is  impossible  to  read 
them  without  rising  from  their  perusal  with  the 
conviction  that  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  their 
authors  to  delineate  a  character,  but  to  compose 
a  narrative  which  should  be  a  record  of  the  ac¬ 
tions  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  creation 
of  the  character  is  the  indirect — I  may  say,  the 
accidental  result  of  this  purpose.  Still  the  char¬ 
acter  is  conspicuous  on  their  pages.  Yet,  as  I 
have  said,  it  is  impossible  to  find,  from  one  end  of 
the  Gospels  to  the  other,  anything  which  bears  the 
smallest  resemblance  to  an  artificial  delineation. 

Another  remarkable  fact  deserves  attention. 
While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  their  authors 
were  penetrated  with  the  profoundest  admiration 
for  the  person  of  their  Master,  yet  never  once  do 


54  MB  UNITY  OU  THK  CHARACTER  OE 

they  dilate  on  his  great  qualities.  They  contain 
no  bursts  of  admiration  at  his  benevolence,  the 
dignity  of  his  demeanor,  his  humility,  his  pa¬ 
tience,  his  perfect  sinlessness,  the  perfection  of 
his  holiness,  or  his  self-sacrifice.  All  that  they 
do  is  to  record  his  actions  and  discourses  with 
scarcely  a  comment  or  remark.  They  have  even 
scarcely  a  hard  word  to  say  of  his  opponents,  al¬ 
though  they  must  have  regarded  the  chief  agents 
in-  bringing  about  his  execution  as  the  worst  of 
murderers.  The  strongest  word  of  denunciation 
which  they  have  is  that  of  “traitor,”  which  St. 
Luke,  and  “thief,”  which  St.John,  applies  to 
Judas,  the  other  two  evangelists  being  content 
with  desmnatinof  him  as  “  the  man  who  delivered 
Him  up.”  In  this  respect  the  Gospels  form  a 
striking  contrast  to  the  Epistles.  Their  authors 
are  constantly  bursting  out  in  admiration  at  his 
greatness,  his  humility,  his  meekness,  and  his 
self-sacrificing  love,  and  habitually  propound  the 
perfection  of  his  character  as  a  subject  for  the 
imitation  of  believers,  and  to  which  they  should 
strain  their  utmost  efforts  to  grow.  They  even 
occasionally  present  us  with  a  brief  delineation  of 
him  as  a  patient  sufferer.  In  a  word,  he  is  the 
object  around  which  the  affections  of  their  writers 
and  the  different  members  of  the  churches  centre. 
The  absence  of  this  from  the  Gospels,  therefore, 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPELS. 


55 


cannot  have  been  due  to  insensibility  in  their  au¬ 
thors,  but  to  the  fact  that  the  purpose  of  compo- 
sinof  a  record  of  his  life  and  teachinof  held  exclu- 
sive  possession  of  their  thoughts.  Yet,  despite 
the  absence  of  the  smallest  conscious  attempt  to 
delineate  a  character,  they  have  done  so  more 
effectually  than  any  of  the  poets,  historians,  or 
biographers  of  the  past  or  of  the  present. 

3.  What  then  forms  the  character,  and  of  what 
does  it  consist?  Evidently  it  is  made  up  of  the 
combined  effect  of  the  various  narratives  which 
compose  the  Gospels;  and  it  results  from  simply 
placing  them  in  juxtaposition  in  the  order  in 
which  they  stand  in  the  evangelists.  It  is  also 
clear  that  the  effect  produced  is  not  dependent  on 
a  skilful  arrangement  of  the  parts.  I  draw  atten¬ 
tion  to  this  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  com¬ 
pletely  inartificial  is  its  production.  How  then 
has  it  originated  ?  The  design  of  the  evangelists 
in  composing  their  Gospels,  as  is  stated  by  two  of 
them,  was  to  edify  believers  and  to  instruct  them 
in  the  principles  of  Christianity.  To  effect  this 
they  have  given  us  four  narratives  of  our  Lord’s 
teaching  and  actions,  and  in  doing  it  they  have 
produced  a  result  which  they  evidently  did  not 
contemplate,  viz.,  they  have  set  before  their 
readers  that  most  perfect  of  all  delineations,  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospels. 


5^  THK  UNITY  OU  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

Now  tlie  parts  of  which  this  portraiture  con¬ 
sists  are  extremely  numerous;  and  if  the  theory  of 
those  whose  views  I  am  controverting  is  correct,- 
they  consist  of  a  mass  of  legends  and  ideal  crea¬ 
tions,  spontaneously  elaborated  by  various  persons 
at  different  times,  without  the  smallest  intention 
of  delineating  a  character.  Yet  it  is  beyond  dis¬ 
pute  that  they  adjust  themselves  into  a  harmo¬ 
nious  whole ;  for,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  portrai¬ 
ture  spontaneously  arises  before  the  mental  vision 
of  every  reader.  Further,  while  the  Jesus  of  the 
evangelists  is  depicted  in  a  wide  range  of  action, 
in  a  great  variety  of  circumstances,  and  often  in 
the  most  trying  situations,  and  while  the  dis¬ 
courses  which  are  attributed  to  him  embrace  an 
extensive  range  of  subject,  the  unity  of  the  char¬ 
acter  is  preserved  throughout. 

4.  Next  observe,  the  portraiture  is  composed  of 
two  factors,  a  divine  and  a  human  element.  The 
former  consists  of  the  miraculous  narrative  of  the 
Gospels,  and  of  those  portions  of  the  discourses  in 
which  our  Lord  directly  affirms  his  own  superhu¬ 
man  character,  or  makes  declarations  which  are 
only  consistent  with  the  consciousness  that  he 
possessed  it.  These  portions  of  the  Gospels  un¬ 
believers  are  unanimous  in  affirming  to  be  either 
mythical,  legendary,  or  ideal  additions  to  the  ac¬ 
tions  and  teaching  of  the  real  Jesus,  which  have 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPELS.  57 

been  attributed  to  him  by  the  enthusiasm  of  his 
followers. 

This  being  so,  I  ask  the  reader’s  attention  to 
a  fact  of  the  greatest  importance  in  this  contro¬ 
versy,  which  he  can  easily  verify  for  himself.  As 
far  as  the  moral  coloring  is  concerned,  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  discern  any  difference  between  this  super¬ 
human  element  and  the  other  portions  of  the  nar¬ 
rative.  In  this  respect  the  divine  and  the  human 
Jesus  are  precisely  alike.  Both  bear  indubitable 
marks  of  having  been  stamped  with  the  same  die. 
Instead  of  there  being  in  the  Gospels  two  Jesuses, 
a  divine  and  a  human  one,  both  factors  insensibly 
shade  into  each  other,  and  blend  together  into  a 
harmonious  unity.  So  intimate  is  the  union  in 
the  pages  of  the  evangelists  that  it  is  simply  im¬ 
possible  to  separate  the  superhuman  from  the  hu¬ 
man  Jesus  without  making  the  entire  narrative  a 
mass  of  confusion.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  if  the 
human  elements  are  historical  and  the  superhu¬ 
man  unhistorical,  that  those  who  invented  the  lat¬ 
ter  must  have  been  penetrated  with  the  elevated 
moral  tone  which  is  characteristic  of  the  former. 

The  following  shows  the  importance  of  this 
consideration.  Mr.  Mill,  in  his  “Posthumous 
Essays,”  expresses  the  opinion  that  it  is  incon¬ 
ceivable  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
can  be  an  ideal  creation,  on  the  ground  that  his 


^8  I'HE  UNITY  OU  THE  CHARACTER  OE 

character  is  one  which  is  absolutely  above  the 
conceptions  of  his  followers,  of  the  primitive 
Christians,  or  even  of  the  apostle  Paul,  to  have 
invented.  But  while  he  makes  this  admission, 
he  affirms  that  it  is  quite  possible  that  His  fol¬ 
lowers  may  have  invented  any  number  of  the 
miracles  which  have  been  attributed  to  him. 
Although  Mr.  Mill  does  not  say  so,  I  consider 
that  I  am  justified  in  inferring  that  he  would  in¬ 
clude  among  these  supernatural  elements  all  our 
kord’s  lofty  affirmations  respecting  himself ;  for 
if  he  was  not  conscious  of  an  indwelling  presence 
of  the  superhuman,  those  utterances  would  have 
been  in  the  highest  degree  presumptuous,  and  ut¬ 
terly  inconsistent  with  that  moral  elevation  which 
Mr.  Mill  justly  attributes  to  the  Jesus  of  the  Sy¬ 
noptics.  On  the  other  hand,  he  directly  affirms 
that  the  contents  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  he 
designates  a  mass  of  poor  stuff,  might  have  been 
produced  in  almost  any  quantities  by  his  fol¬ 
lowers. 

This  being  so,  the  reader  will  at  once  perceive 
the  importance  of  the  fact  to  which  I  now  draw 
attention,  that  the  moral  aspect  of  the  superhu¬ 
man  and  the  human  elements  in  the  Gospels  is 
precisely  similar.  If  it  is  impossible  to  believe 
that  the  latter  can  have  been  an  invention  of  the 
followers  of  Jesus  because  it  stands  at  an  eleva- 


the:  CHRIST  OR  THK  GOSPRTS. 


59 


tion  far  above  tlieir  conceptions,  the  same  reason 
is  equally  applicable  to  the  former.  Further,  if 
the  latter  are  affirmed  to  be  historical  and  the  for¬ 
mer  nnhistorical,  then  it  is  evident  that  those  who 
invented  the  former  must  have  been  interpenetra¬ 
ted  with  the  elevated  moral  tone  which  is  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  latter — a  moral  tone  which  Mr.  Mill 
would  certainly  not  attribute  to  a  number  of  cred¬ 
ulous  mythologists.  The  whole  question,  there¬ 
fore,  resolves  itself  into  one  of  simple  fact:  is  the 
moral  elevation  of  the  superhuman  elements  of 
the  Gospels  on  a  level  with  that  of  the  human 
ones?  We  affirm  that  it  is. 

For  the  necessary  proofs  we  refer  the  reader 
not  merely  to  a  number  of  detached  passages,  but 
to  the  entire  Gospels.  The  New  Testament  is 
accessible  to  every  reader,  and  he  can  test  the 
truth  of  the  above  affirmation  for  himself  by  a 
careful  perusal  of  their  contents.  If  he  will  do 
so,  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  will  arrive  at  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  the  moral  aspects  of  the  superhuman 
and  the  human  Jesus  are  precisely  the  same,  and 
that  they  so  insensibly  blend  into  each  other  in 
the  Gospel  narrative  that  it  is  impossible  to  sepa¬ 
rate  the  one  from  the  other.  * 

*  I  would  refer  the  reader  to  the  following,  among  many  pas¬ 
sages,  as  examples  of  this  blending  :  Matthew  5,  the  whole  chap¬ 
ter.  I  might  add  the  entire  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  which  Je- 


6o  "THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 


Such  are  some  of  the  more  striking  facts  on 
the  surface  of  the  Gospels  which  are  obvious  to 
every  reader.  How,  then,  do  those  w’ho  impugn 
their  historical  character  account  for  the  existence 
of  these  facts  ? 

Stated  briefly,  their  theory  is  as  follows  :  The 
historical  Jesus  was  a  very  great  man,  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  attaching  to  himself  a  number  of  enthu¬ 
siastic  and  credulous  followers.  These  imagined 
him  to  be  the  Messiah  of  certain  old  predictions; 
and  believing  that  the  Messiah  must  do  such  and 
such  things,  they  fondly  imagined  that  Jesus  ac¬ 
tually  performed  them.  This  tendency  greatly 
increased  during  the  century  which  followed  his 
death.  Numerous  ideologists  invented  a  number 
of  stories  which  ascribed  to  him  a  superhuman 
character  and  the  possession  of  miraculous  pow¬ 
ers,  and  the  credulity  of  the  primitive  believers 


sus  is  depicted  as  acting  the  part  of  legislator  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  as  enunciator  of  its  laws  on  His  own  sole  authority,  and 
even  enlarging  and  annulling  precepts  which  both  he  and  his 
hearers  accepted  as  precepts  unquestionably  divine.  A  similar 
assertion  of  authority  pervades  the  whole  of  his  moral  teaching : 
Matthew  10:32-42;  Matthew  11:25-30;  Matthew  19:27-29,  inclu¬ 
ding  the  context  from  ver.  25 ;  Matthew  25  : 31-46 ;  Matthew  26 :  64, 
including  the  entire  narrative  of  the  passion  and  betrayal ;  John 
II,  John  13.  To  these  should  be  added  everyone  of  the  miracu¬ 
lous  narratives,  including  their  entire  context,  in  which  our  Lord 
is  depicted  as  performing  his  miracles  without  any  reference  to  a 
higher  power  or  authority  than  his  own,  and  those  in  which  by  his 
sole  authority  he  undertakes  to  forgive  sins. 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPELS.  6l 

led  them  to  mistake  these  stories  for  the  facts  of 
his  historic  life.  The  result  was  that  the  historic 
Jesus  became  gradually  metamorphosed  into  a 
mythic  hero,  and  the  real  events  of  his  life  became 
buried  under  a  mass  of  myth,  legend,  and  ideol¬ 
ogy.  In  this  state  of  things  the  authors  of  our 
first  three  Gospels  took  these  legendary  reminis¬ 
cences  in  hand,  and  with  the  aid  of  a  certain  num¬ 
ber  of  documents  which  were  already  in  existence, 
composed  their  respective  Gospels,  which  speedily 
acquired  such  a  degree  of  popularity  among  the 
primitive  believers  that  they  have  caused  all  the 
other  legendary  accounts  to  sink  into  oblivion, 
except  those  which  happen  to  have  been  preserved 
in  those  eighteen  compositions  which  are  com¬ 
monly  designated  the  Spurious  Gospels.  The 
fourth  Gospel,  on  the  other  hand,  is  affirmed  to 
be  a  deliberate  forgery,  the  work  of  some  Chris¬ 
tian,  bent  on  glorifying  his  Master,  who  was 
deeply  imbued  with  the  principles  of  the  Alexan¬ 
drine  philosophy.  These  theories,  it  is  true,  have 
been  propounded  with  considerable  variations, 
but  what  I  have  here  stated  will  be  sufficient  to 
put  the  reader  in  possession  of  their  general  sub¬ 
stance.  Such  is  the  account  which  modern  un¬ 
belief  propounds  of  the  origin  of  the  portraiture. 
The  following  are  some  of  the  impossibilities  in- 
vol  ved  in  it ; 


62  the  unity  ot  the  character  of 

According  to  the  theories  which  I  am  contro¬ 
verting,  the  inventors  of  the  legendary  matter 
out  of  which  our  present  Gospels  were  composed 
must  have  been  a  numerous  body.  This  is  not 
only  conceded  by  those  against  whose  views  I  am 
contending,  but  it  necessarily  results  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  a  gradual  growth.  It  is  also 
certain  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  mutual 
consultation  was  impossible,  inasmuch  as  the 
mythologists  were  the  members  of  churches,  wide¬ 
ly  separated  from  each  other. 

What  then  are  we  asked  to  accept  as  the  true 
account  of  the  origin  of  the  portraiture  in  place  of 
the  natural  one  that  it  is  the  delineation  of  a 
historical  reality?  We  are  invited  to  believe 
that  a  body  of  ideologists  spontaneously  engaged 
in  the  work  of  inventing  a  number  of  imaginary 
stories  and  attributing  them  to  Jesus;  that  the 
three  first  evangelists  made  a  selection  out  of  a 
large  mass  of  such  stories,  and  by  simply  weaving 
them  into  a  narrative  their  respective  Christs  have 
emerged,  each  a  unity  in  itself,  and  all  three  con¬ 
stituting  a  common  unity.  This  is  the  theory 
which  we  are  asked  to  accept  of  the  origin  of  the 
different  narratives  which  compose  the  Gospels, 
and  consequently  of  the  portraiture,  for  it  is  the 
conjoint  effect  of  the  narratives. 

The  reader  will  perhaps  wonder  that  the  crea- 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  63 

tion  of  the  entire  character  has  not  been  ascribed 
to  a  single  ideologist;  but  this  is  so  opposed  to  all 
the  historical  conditions  of  the  case  that  such  a 
theory  has  not  been  propounded  by  a  single  unbe¬ 
liever  of  eminence.  I^et  it  be  observed  that  the 
only  model  which  the  inventors  of  the  portraiture 
could  have  had  to  assist  them  was  that  of  the 
Messiah  as  delineated  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament,  a  certain  number  of  apocryphal  wri¬ 
tings  of  which  the  book  of  Enoch  was  the  chief, 
and  the  popular  Messianic  conceptions  of  the  day. 
But  the  assistance  which  these  writings  could 
have  afforded  them  must  have  been  indefinitely 
small,  because  among  other  differences  of  charac¬ 
ter,  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  usually 
depicted  under  the  image  of  a  triumphant  warrior 
who  tramples  his  foes  beneath  his  feet,  whereas 
the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  is  the  Christ  of  peace, 
and  One  who  denies  to  his  followers  the  use  of 
carnal  weapons  to  promote  his  cause.  The  Mes¬ 
siah  of  the  book  of  Enoch  is  a  superhuman  being, 
without  one  human  trait;  and  the  leading  idea  of 
the  Messiah  of  popular  expectation  was  that  of  a 
hero  who  would  break  the  Roman  yoke  from  off 
the  neck  of  the  Jewish  people  and  exalt  them  to 
universal  rule.  To  all  such  ideas  the  Christ  of 
the  Gospels  forms  a  striking  contrast.  It  is  cer¬ 
tain,  therefore,  that  the  ideologists,  if  they  had 


64  the  unity  of  the  character  of 

used  any  of  the  above  materials  as  their  model, 
would  have  depicted  a  Christ  widely  different 
from  the  delineation  which  is  set  before  us  in  the 
pages  of  the  evangelists. 

Now,  according  to  the  theories  of  those  whose 
views  I  am  controverting,  the  Gospels  are  a 
natural  growth  out  of  the  moral  and  religious 
ideas  and  the  Messianic  conceptions  of  the  times. 
These  were  beyond  all  question  earthly  and  carnal. 
The  mythologists  therefore  must  have  made  a  start 
of  some  kind  in  advance  of  the  moral  and  spiritual 
atmosphere  in  the  midst  of  which  they  lived;  for 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  beyond  all  question  a 
spiritual  Christ,  and  his  moral  teaching  is  a  mo¬ 
rality  of  the  greatest  elevation.  It  follows,  there¬ 
fore,  as  mutual  consultation  among  the  fabrica¬ 
tors  of  the  myths  and  legends  which  compose  our 
Gospels  was  out  of  the  question,  that  they  must 
have  spontaneously  arrived  at  the  same  conclu¬ 
sion  as  to  the  style  of  character  with  which  the 
Christ  ought  to  be  invested.  The  reader  will, 
I  think,  be  of  opinion  that  such  a  supposition  is 
incredible. 

But  another  alternative  may  be  suggested. 
The  authors  of  our  present  Gospels,  out  of  the 
large  mass  of  materials  at  their  command,  may 
have  selected  only  such  as  were  of  a  certain  type, 
and  by  rejecting  the  remainder  have  consigned 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  65 

them  to  oblivion.  This  supposition,  however,  is 
only  a  little  less  incredible  than  the  previous  one; 
for  it  is  essential  to  the  theory  in  question  to  as¬ 
sume  that  the  primitive  believers  (the  mytholo- 
gists  included)  were  to  the  last  degree  credulous 
and  superstitious.  Now,  such  people  when  they 
invent  myths  and  legends,  as  all  past  history 
testifies,  invariably  invent  such  as  are  of  a  low 
type.  Whence  then  did  the  authors  of  our  Gos¬ 
pels  get  their  supply  of  stories  of  a  high  moral 
elevation?  or  even  if  such  were  available,  how 
has  it  come  to  pass  that  they  have  uniformly 
rejected  everything  which  w^as  mean  and  con¬ 
temptible,  and  incorporated  into  their  narratives 
only  what  was  elevated  and  moral?  To  this 
question  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer. 

But  further,  our  present  Gospels  have  super- 
ceded  this  mass  of  current  legendary  matter.  How 
was  this  to  be  effected?  The  taste  of  credulous 
and  superstitious  enthusiasts  is  for  the  grotesque; 
and  the  theory  in  question  affirms  the  primitive 
believers  to  have  been  credulous  and  superstitious 
enthusiasts.  How  then  were  they  to  be  induced 
to  accept  a  set  of  stories  of  an  elevated  type  as 
the  only  true  account  of  the  life  and  actions  of 
the  Founder  of  the  church,  in  the  place  of  the 

current  ones  so  congenial  to  their  taste?  Yet  as 

5 


66  TH^:  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

a  matter  of  fact  they  were  thus  accepted,  and 
have  consigned  the  others  (with  the  exception  of 
the  contents  of  the  spurious  Gospels)  to  a  well- 
merited  oblivion. 

Happily,  however,  we  are  not  left  in  doubt  as 
to  the  kind  of  fictions  which  credulous  mytholo- 
gists  invent.  In  these  spurious  Gospels  we  pos¬ 
sess  a  number  of  such  fictions,  of  which  the  person 
of  our  Lord  forms  the  centre.  To  two  of  these  are 
assigned  as  early  a  date  as  the  end  of  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century;  the  remainder  are  of  a  later 
date.  They  enable  us  to  know  for  certain  what 
was  the  class  of  actions  which  during  these  times 
writers  of  fiction  were  in  the  habit  of  ascribing  to 
our  kord.  The  incidents  which  they  record  are 
confined  to  two  periods  of  his  life,  vi^. ,  his  child¬ 
hood  and  early  boyhood,  on  which  our  Gospels 
are  all  but  silent,  and  his  passion  and  resurrec¬ 
tion;  and  they  omit  the  history  of  his  ministry 
and  teaching.  The  miracles  which  they  attribute 
to  him  are  for  the  most  part  of  a  most  grotesque 
character,  and  are  devoid  of  all  moral  impress. 
They  are  almost  too  painful  for  quotation,  being 
little  better  than  caricatures  of  the  Holy  One  of 
God.  I  have  elsewhere  drawn  a  brief  contrast  be¬ 
tween  the  Jesus  of  these  Gospels  and  the  Jesus  of 
the  evangelists,  and  I  cannot  give  the  reader  a 
better  idea  of  their  contents  than  by  quoting  it: 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPELS.  67 

“The  case  stands  thus:  Our  Gospels  present 
us  with  the  picture  of  a  glorious  Christ;  the  mythic 
Gospels  with  that  of  a  contemptible  one.  Our 
Gospels  have  invested  him  with  the  highest  con¬ 
ceivable  form  of  human  greatness ;  the  mythic 
ones  have  not  ascribed  to  him  a  single  action 
wdiich  is  elevated.  In  our  Gospels  he  exhibits  a 
superhuman  wisdom;  in  the  mythic  ones  a  nearly 
equal  superhuman  absurdity.  In  our  Gospels  he 
is  arrayed  in  all  the  beauty  of  holiness ;  in  the 
mythic  ones  this  aspect  is  entirely  wanting.  In 
our  Gospels  not  one  stain  of  sinfulness  defiles  his 
character;  in  the  mythic  ones  the  boy  Jesus  is  both 
pettish  and  malicious.  Our  Gospels  exhibit  to  us 
a  sublime  morality;  not  a  single  ray  of  it  shines  in 
those  of  the  mythologists.  The  miracles  of  the 
one  and  the  other  are  contrasted  in  every  point. 
A  similar  opposition  of  character  runs  through  the 
whole  current  of  their  thought,  feeling,  morality, 
and  religion.  ”  ( “  The  J esus  of  the  Evangelists,  ’ ' 
p.  381.) 

Such  is  mythology  when  it  undertakes  to  deal 
with  the  person  of  our  Lord.  The  supposition 
that  the  great  character  of  the  Gospels  is  the  cre¬ 
ation  of  a  number  of  credulous  and  superstitious 
enthusiasts  is  therefore  simply  incredible. 

The  character  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is 
admitted  even  by  unbelievers  to  be  one  of  the 


68  the  unity  ou  the  character  of 

greatest  elevation.  Consequently,  if  it  is  an  ideal 
creation,  it  is  entitled  to  rank  among  the  most 
perfect  works  of  art;  in  fact,  it  is  a  work  of  art, 
just  as  great  poems,  paintings,  and  statues  are 
works  of  art.  Now  these  latter  are  never  pro¬ 
duced  at  hap-hazard,  but  are  the  creations  of  per¬ 
sons  endowed  with  lofty  genius.  If,  therefore, 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  has  resulted  from  the 
labors  of  a  number  of  mythologists  (which  is  the 
theory  of  my  opponents),  it  follows  that  those  who 
assisted  at  its  creation  must  have  been  persons  of 
lofty  genius  and  moral  elevation. 

The  application  of  this  theory  to  some  ac¬ 
knowledged  work  of  art,  be  it  poem,  painting,  or 
statue,  will  render  its  absurdity  manifest.  Let  us 
suppose  that  a  character  which  runs  through  the 
entire  action  of  a  poem  forms  a  consistent  unity; 
that  both  poem  and  character  are  admitted  to  be¬ 
long  to  a  very  high  order  of  such  compositions, 
and  are  the  result  of  the  labors  of  a  considerable 
number  of  poets  who  spontaneously  delineated 
the  different  parts  of  which  it  is  composed.  But 
as  the  whole  is  made  up  of  the  parts,  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  assume  that  a  number  of  persons  of  high 
poetic  genius  must  have  spontaneously  concurred 
in  its  production.  In  a  similar  manner,  if  we 
were  asked  to  believe  that  a  celebrated  painting 
or  statue  originated  in  a  similar  way,  it  would  be 


THE  CPIRIST  OE  THE  GOSPETS.  69 

necessary  to  assume  the  coexistence  of  a  numer¬ 
ous  body  of  eminent  artists,  who  either  by  consent 
or  chance  devoted  themselves  to  the  elaboration 
of  the  various  parts,  which  when  put  together 
compose  the  picture  or  the  statue;  and  that  these 
different  fragments,  when  put  together,  formed 
not  only  a  unity,  but  a  painting  or  a  statue  of  the 
highest  artistic  merit. 

A  single  illustration  will  enable  the  reader  to 
appreciate  the  absurdity  of  such  a  position.  There 
is  in  the  picture  gallery  of  the  Louvre  a  celebrated 
painting  called  “The  Marriage  of  Cana  in  Gali¬ 
lee.’’  It  consists  of  a  very  considerable  number 
of  figures  in  a  common  grouping,  all  of  which 
shade  into  each  other  and  form  a  harmonious 
unity  of  conception.  Let  us  apply  to  this  paint¬ 
ing  the  theory  which  we  are  invited  to  accept  as 
affording  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
Gospels,  and  consequently  of  the  portraiture  which 
they  contain.  If,  then,  the  picture  is  not  the  work 
of  a  single  artist,  but  of  a  multitude  of  artists, 
each  of  them,  in  accordance  with  the  above  the¬ 
ory,  must  have  spontaneously  painted  a  number 
of  figures,  from  which,  when  a  selection  had  been 
made,  and  the  selected  figures  were  skilfully 
placed  side  by  side,  this  celebrated  picture  was 
formed.  This  is  simply  incredible.  Yet  it  is  an 
undeniable  fact  that  the  theory  which  we  are  in- 


70  THE  UNITY  OE  THE  CHARACTER  OE 

vited  to  accept  as  affording  a  rational  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  and  consequently  of  the 
portraiture  of  their  Christ,  is  encumbered  with  far 
greater  difficulties ;  for  its  fabricators,  instead  of 
being  men  of  lofty  genius  and  moral  elevation, 
are,  owing  to  the  necessities  of  the  above  theory, 
affirmed  to  have  been  a  body  of  credulous  and 
superstitious  enthusiasts. 

The  reader  will  probably  wish  to  be  informed 
why  those  who  have  propounded  the  different  the¬ 
ories  which  I  am  combating  encumber  themselves 
with  the  assumption  that  the  primitive  believers 
were  a  body  of  credulous  and  superstitious  enthu¬ 
siasts.  The  reason  is  that  it  is  necessary  to  do  so 
to  enable  them  to  account  for  the  ready  acceptance 
of  the  various  miracles,  which  were  attributed  to 
Jesus  as  actual  facts  of  his  real  life,  while  in  truth 
he  himself  performed  none. 

But  not  only  does  the  legendary  spirit  involve 
a  low  moral  ideal  (for  this  is  an  invariable  accom¬ 
paniment  of  extreme  credulity  and  superstition), 
but  according  to  theories  widely  current  among 
unbelievers,  these  particular  legends  must  have 
been  the  creations  of  men  who  were  at  once  nar¬ 
row-minded,  credulous,  and,  I  may  say,  fanati¬ 
cally  enthusiastic.  Yet  they  are  destitute  of  a 
single  trait  of  fanaticism,  and  contain,  as  I  have 
•observed,  scarcely  any  indication  of  enthusiasm. 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPEES. 

Still  more,  according  to  the  theories  of  modern 
unbelief,  the  communities  in  the  midst  of  which 
the  legends  originated  were  animated  by  a  strong 
party  spirit,  which  split  them  up  into  a  number 
of  contending  sects.  What  effect  would  this  have 
produced  on  the  legends  evolved  in  such  socie¬ 
ties?  They  would  certainly  be  deeply  tinged 
with  their  moral  impress,  and  they  would  bear 
the  indubitable  marks  of  narrow-mindedness,  big¬ 
otry,  and  fanaticism.  Each  sect  also  would  have 
elaborated  a  set  of  legends  in  conformity  with  its 
own  tastes;  and  as  the  Judai^ing  party  was  the 
predominant  one  among  the  primitive  followers 
of  Jesus,  they  would  certainly  have  invented  leg¬ 
ends  which  were  the  counterparts  of  their  own 
narrow-mindedness  and  intolerance.  But,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  no  such  spirit  is  impressed  on  the 
narrative  of  a  single  action  which  is  attributed  to 
our  Eord.  Great,  therefore,  must  have  been  the 
unanimity  of  the  inventors,  and  their  moral  ideal 
preeminently  lofty  ! 

I  now  ask  the  reader’s  attention  to  a  few  facts 
in  illustration  of  the  difficulties  which  the  ideolo¬ 
gists  must  have  overcome  before  they  could  have 
succeeded  in  delineating  the  various  parts  of 
which  this  great  character  is  composed. 

I.  They  must  spontaneously  have  concurred 
in  delineating  a  character  which  beyond  all  ques- 


72  the:  unity  of  the  character  of 

tion  exhibits  a  combination  of  the  divine  and  the 
human  in  a  single  personality.  The  character 
portrayed  in  the  Gospels  is  obviously  not  the  de¬ 
lineation  of  one  which  is  divine  throughout,  nor 
of  one  which  is  purely  human;  but  it  is  composed 
of  a  union  of  the  superhuman  and  the  human. 
The  problem  w^ould  have  been  comparatively 
.easy  of  solution  if  a  single  mythologist  had  pro¬ 
posed  to  himself  to  delineate  a  character  which 
should  exhibit  either  of  these  separate  from  the 
other;  but  when  they  are  to  be  delineated  in  com¬ 
bination  the  problem  becomes  extremely  compli¬ 
cated  as  to  the  proportion  in  which  the  superhu¬ 
man  and  the  human  are  to  enter  into  the  charac¬ 
ter,  and  how  they  are  to  be  made  insensibly  to 
shade  into  each  other  and  form  a  harmonious 
unity.  But  immeasurably  greater  would  have 
been  the  difficulty  if  a  number  of  mythologists 
had  spontaneously  engaged  in  elaborating  por¬ 
tions  of  a  character  of  this  description,  which, 
when  combined,  or  even  a  selection  of  them, 
should  form  a  unity.  Yet  it  is  a  simple  fact  that 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  does  exhibit  this  unity, 
and  that  the  two  factors  shade  into  each  other 
with  exquisite  perfection. 

2.  They  must  also  have  concurred  in  delinea¬ 
ting  a  character  which  is  the  most  perfect  mani¬ 
festation  of  benevolence,  tempered  with  the  per- 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPEES.  73 

fection  of  holiness,  and  they  have  at  the  same 
time  invested  it  with  an  aspect  of  stern  severity 
when  brought  into  contact  with  certain  forms  of 
moral  evil.  I  draw  attention  to  this  point  because 
the  whole  range  of  literature  which  bears  on  this 
subject  proves  that  the  diversity  of  opinion — how 
these  three  attributes  are  to  be  exhibited  in  com¬ 
bination  in  the  same  character — is  very  wide;  not 
a  few  contending  that  the  perfection  of  benevo¬ 
lence  requires  the  exclusion  of  the  sterner  aspects 
of  holiness.  Yet  these  aspects  of  character,  as 
they  are  depicted  by  the  evangelists,  unite  to¬ 
gether  in  the  portraiture  of  our  Lord  with  an  ex¬ 
quisite  harmony;  nor  do  the  Gospels  contain  an 
indication  of  the  existence  of  a  single  legend 
which  portrayed  him  otherwise.  In  this  respect 
its  unity  is  complete. 

3.  Numerous  as  must  have  been  the  mytholo- 
gists,  they  all  have  concurred  in  attributing  to 
Jesus  absolute  unselfishness.  If  we  read  the  Gos¬ 
pels  from  one  end  to  the  other  we  shall  not  detect 
in  him  one  single  selfish  trait.  It  follows,  there¬ 
fore,  that  none  of  the  numerous  legends  out  of 
which  the  character  has  been  composed  could 
have  depicted  him  as  stirred  to  anger  by  a  sense 
of  personal  injury  or  animated  by  a  single  motive 
of  self-interest.  Still,  anger  is  not  infrequently 
ascribed  to  him ;  but  it  is  invariably  aroused  by 


74  "The;  unity  of  thf  character  of 

the  extreme  form  of  moral  obliquity.  Further, 
nowhere  is  this  unselfishness  more  strongly  exhib¬ 
ited  than  in  the  miraculous  narratives,  which, 
according  to  the  theory  I  am  combating,  must 
have  been  all  legendary  inventions. 

4.  Equally  unanimous  must  they  have  been  in 
attributing  to  our  Eord  a  self-consciousness  of  the 
highest  greatness  in  combination  with  the  most 
perfect  humility.  I  say  self-conscious  greatness, 
because  the  self-assertion  which  is  attributed  to 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  of  the  strongest  pos¬ 
sible  character.  It  is  such  as  would  be  simply 
extravagant  in  the  mouth  of  any  other  man  ;  in 
fact  it  would  have  been  profane;  and  its  extrava¬ 
gance  is  greatly  increased  by  the  humble  position 
of  the  utterer.  Now  nothing  w^ould  have  more 
taxed  the  skill  of  a  poet  or  a  novelist  than  to 
make  the  parts  of  such  a  character  harmonise 
with  one  another  in  an  ideal  delineation.  Proba¬ 
bly  no  more  difficult  problem  could  be  presented 
to  either;  yet  both  fit  into  one  another  in  the  Jesus 
of  the  evangelists  with  an  exquisite  harmony,  and 
are  preeminently  conspicuous  in  his  miraculous 
actions.  But  his  self-assertion,  great  as  it  is,  is 
never  obtrusive;  and  while  our  Lord  is  uniformly 
depicted  as  conscious  of  supreme  worthiness,  he 
is  invariably  clothed  in  a  garment  of  humility. 
These  are  traits  the  fine  touches  of  which  defy 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPEES. 


75 


all  power  of  imitation,  yet  they  underlie  the  en¬ 
tire  structure  of  the  Gospels.  A  single  ideologist 
would  have  found  the  delineation  of  this  portion 
of  the  character  a  work  of  the  greatest  difficulty; 
yet,  according  to  the  theory  I  am  controverting, 
not  only  must  the  numerous  mythologists  of  prim¬ 
itive  Christianity  have  been  unanimous  in  attrib¬ 
uting  these  exquisite  traits  of  character  to  Jesus, 
but  they  have  succeeded  in  delineating  them  to 
perfection. 

5.  Equally  unanimous  must  they  have  been 
in  attributing  the  ideal  of  moral  perfection  to  the 
character  which  they  invented ;  and  still  more  re¬ 
markable  is  it  that  they  must  have  agreed  in  what 
the  ideal  of  moral  perfection  consisted.  We  know 
as  a  matter  of  fact  that  there  has  been  a  wide  di¬ 
versity  of  opinion  as  to  the  mode  and  degree  in 
which  the  various  virtues  ought  to  be  combined 
so  as  to  form  a  perfect  character.  Yet  the  deline¬ 
ators  of  the  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the  evange¬ 
lists  must  in  some  way  or  other  have  arrived  at 
an  unconscious  unanimity,  for  no  trait  of  discord 
can  be  found  in  it  throughout.  Further,  it  is  the 
universal  tendency  of  mankind,  and  preeminently 
of  the  ancient  world,  to  ascribe  the  highest  place 
to  the  heroic  and  political  virtues,  and  a  lower 
one  to  the  milder  and  -more  unobtrusive  ones. 
But  in  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  while  the  heroic 


76  THK  UNITY  OT  THE  CHARACTER  OE 

ones  are  not  wanting,  they  are  subordinate  to  the 
milder  aspects  of  his  character.  Here  again  the 
numerous  mythologists  must  have  unanimously 
arrived  at  a  conclusion  the  very  opposite  of  which 
the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  the  times  would 
have  urged  them  to  adopt. 

6.  The  suffering  Christ  is  a  marvellous  deline¬ 
ation,  and  so  important  is  the  place  which  it  oc¬ 
cupies,  that  in  point  of  space  the  history  of  the 
passion  fills  about  three-seventeenths  of  the  entire 
Gospels.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the  mythologists 
unanimously  agreed  in  attributing  to  their  ideal 
Christ  a  superhuman  character.  The  problem 
which  must  have  presented  itself  to  their  minds 
must  therefore  have  been  an  extremely  compli¬ 
cated  one — how  such  a  character  was  to  be  de¬ 
picted  as  a  sufferer.  Here  the  whole  course  of 
ancient  literature,  even  if  they  had  been  acquaint¬ 
ed  with  it,  would  have  furnished  them  with  no 
model ;  for  if  they  had  used  as  such  the  few  in¬ 
stances  of  this  kind  in  the  ancient  poets,  they 
would  have  conducted  them  wide  of  the  Christ  of 
the  Gospels.  Witness  the  Prometheus  of  ^schy- 
lus.  Nor  with  the  exception  of  two,  vi^.,  the 
twenty-second  Psalm  and  the  fifty-third  of  Isaiah, 
would  the  Messianic  delineations  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  have  guided  them  nearer  to  it ;  and  these 
two  could  only  have  furnished  them  with  the 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPEES. 


77 


barest  outline,  not  easy  to  reconcile  with  the 
other  Messianic  delineations.  Further,  in  at¬ 
tempting  to  depict  the  Messiah  as  a  patient  suf¬ 
ferer,  the  whole  current  of  popular  thought  was 
against  them.  Yet  their  portraiture  of  the  suffer¬ 
ing  Christ  is  consistent  throughout.  No  discord¬ 
ant  trait  mars  its  harmony.  He  is  all  submission 
to  his  Father’s  will,  he  is  calm,  he  is  dignified  in 
the  presence  of  his  persecutors,  he  is  absolutely 
patient  under  the  acutest  sufferings.  What  can 
surpass  the  dignity  or  the  self-possession  of  the 
scene  before  Pilate,  or  the  patience  of  the  Suf¬ 
ferer  on  the  cross?  But,  further:  the  extremity 
of  suffering  concentrates  the  thoughts  exclusively 
on  self.  Not  so  is  it  in  the  case  of  the  Jesus  of 
the  Gospels.  Yet  it  is  human  to  be  perturbed  at 
suffering,  even  at  the  prospect  of  it,  and  the  Suf¬ 
ferer  of  the  Gospels  is  not  only  conceived  of  as 
superhuman,  but  as  human  also — how,  then,  were 
these  factors  to  be  brought  into  harmonv?  The 
answer  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  the  scene  at 
Gethsemane.  Who  shall  describe  it  after  them  ? 
The  entire  account  of  the  Passion  is  a  unitv 
throughout.  If,  therefore,  a  mythic  element  en¬ 
ters  into  it,  the  mythologists  must  have  been 
unanimous  as  to  the  mode  of  its  delineation.  Its 
execution  is  so  perfect  that  a  writer  not  too  favor¬ 
ably  disposed  to  Christianity  has  put  into  the 


78  the;  unity  ou  the  character  oe 

moutli  of  a  fictitious  character  what  are  believed 
to  have  been  his  own  sentiments,  that  if  the  death 
of  Socrates  was  worthy  of  a  philosopher,  the  Pas¬ 
sion  of  Jesus,  as  it  is  delineated  in  the  Gospels,  is 
worthy  of  a  God. 

7.  Renan  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  no 
character,  whether  real  or  ideal,  approaches  that 
of  Jesus  in  the  closeness  of  his  consciousness  of 
God,  and  in  his  intimate  perception  of  his  moral 
fatherhood.  If  I  understand  him  rightly,_he  con¬ 
siders  this  to  be  a  real  trait  in  the  character  of  the 
historical  Jesus,  though  it  is  very  difficult  to  un¬ 
derstand  how  it  is  consistent  with  his  theories 
respecting  the  large  amount  of  legendary  matter 
which  is  incorporated  in  the  Gospel  narratives. 
But,  at  any  rate,  the  presence  of  so  large  an 
amount  of  historic  truth  in  their  pages,  which 
Renan’s  position  presupposes,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  theories  which  are  currently  accepted  by  mod¬ 
ern  unbelievers.  He  has,  however,  only  stated  a 
fact  which  must  be  patent  to  every  reader  of  the 
Gospels,  vi^. ,  that  the  Christ  is  uniformly  depict¬ 
ed  as  possessing  a  most  intimate  consciousness  of 
God  and  of  his  Fatherhood  in  relation  to  Himself, 
and  as  teaching  the  great  truth  of  His  fatherhood 
of  mankind.  The  fact  thus  noted  by  Renan  may 
be  more  accurately  stated  as  follows:  Their  Christ 
is  depicted  as  uniformly  conscious  of  the  indwell- 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPELS.  79 

ing  of  the  divine.  Instances  of  this  may  be  found 
in  nearly  every  page,  but  especially  when  he  acts 
the  part  of  a  moral  teacher,  enunciating,  as  he 
does,  the  laws  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  his 
own  sole  authority,  when  he  works  his  miracles, 
and  in  the  closeness  of  his  communion  with  God. 
If,  then,  the  portraiture  is  an  ideal  one,  the  my- 
thologists  must  have  spontaneously  arrived  at  an 
agreement  as  to  how,  in  these  aspects  of  it,  it  was 
to  be  delineated ;  for  the  character  in  these  re¬ 
spects  is  unique,  and  they  were  absolutely  with¬ 
out  a  model  to  aid  them  in  the  delineation ;  yet 
they  have  succeeded  in  successfully  embodying 
the  idea  over  an  extensive  area  of  dramatized  ac¬ 
tion.  The  reader  must  form  his  own  opinion 
whether  the  above  theory  affords  a  rational  ac¬ 
count  of  the  unity  of  the  conception,  which,  in 
the  points  above  referred  to,  indubitably  pervades 
the  entire  narrative  of  the  Gospels  and  the  por¬ 
traiture  of  their  Christ. 

8.  The  Gospels  are  set  in  a  historic  framework, 
i.  e.,  they  contain  very  numerous  allusions  to  the 
history,  manners,  customs,  modes  of  thought,  and 
circumstances  of  the  times  during  which  the 
events  which  they  profess  to  record  occurred.  It 
is  true  that  the  correctness  of  some  few  of  these 
have  been  called  in  question  by  hostile  critics ; 
yet  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  bulk  of  them 


8o  THE  UNITY  OE  THE  CHARACTER  OE 

(and  they  are  very  numerous)  have  been  verified. 
The  reader  can  readily  form  an  estimate  of  the 
difficulty  with  which  the  attempt  to  set  ideal  cre¬ 
ations  in  a  historical  framework  is  attended  by 
simply  bringing  under  review  the  works  of  fiction 
with  which  he  is  acquainted.  He  will  find  that 
poets  and  novel  writers,  even  of  the  highest  emi¬ 
nence,  when  they  dramatize  their  characters  over 
an  extensive  sphere  of  action,  very  imperfectly 
succeed  in  adjusting  them  to  the  actual  facts  of 
history.  This  is  even  the  case  with  Shakespeare, 
of  which  any  one  may  satisfy  himself  by  reading 
those  of  his  historical  plays  of  which  certain 
events  in  Roman  history  form  the  groundwork. 
The  characters  and  the  sentiments  attributed  to 
them  are  really  modern  ones  ticketed  with  Roman 
names.  Thus,  to  adduce  one  or  two  instances, 
the  poet  has  confounded  between  the  two  Bru- 
tuses,  Decimus  and  Marcus,  supposing  that  the 
latter  was  Caesar’s  favorite,  whereas  it  was  the 
former.  He  makes  Marcus  proclaim  himself  to 
be  free  from  the  vice  of  paltry  pelf,  with  the  gains 
of  which  he  avers  that  he  will  never  defile  his 
hands;  yet  we  know  from  Cicero’s  letters  that 
this  paragon  of  Roman  virtue  was  an  extortioner, 
and  was  ready  to  enforce  payment  of  his  debts  by 
means  so  unhallowed  that  the  great  orator,  al¬ 
though  his  friend,  refused  to  allow  of  his  doing  so 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPELS.  8r 

during  liis  administration  of  Cyprus  and  Cilicia, 
though  a  former  governor  had  actually  conceded 
to  his  agent  the  use  of  a  troop  of  horse,  who  close¬ 
ly  besieged  the  senate  of  Salamis,  until  some  of 
its  members  died  of  starvation.  The  debt  was  a 
loan,  on  which  the  interest  was  at  the  rate  of  48 
per  cent,  per  annum.  He  is  also  made  to  address 
the  mob  in  the  Forum,  who  called  themselves  the 
Roman  people,  as  “Friends,  Romans,  country¬ 
men!”  No  Roman  orator  would  ever  have  used 
these  or  similar  expressions.  So  again,  he  is  made 
to  address  senators  as  ‘  ‘  My  Fords,  ’  ’  a  term  which 
the  Em*peror  Tiberius  said,  when  it  was  attempt¬ 
ed  to  be  addressed  to  himself,  was  only  fit  to  be 
used  by  slaves  to  their  masters.  In  speeches  in 
the  senate  the  uniform  mode  of  address  was  ‘  ‘  Con¬ 
script  Fathers” — “  Patres  Conscripti.”  It  would 
be  easy  to  adduce  a  number  of  similar  instances 
from  the  writings  of  the  poet,  but  these  will  be 
sufficient  to  give  the  reader  an  idea  of  the  thing 
intended.  If,  then,  the  greatest  of  dramatists  has 
conspicuously  failed  in  accurately  portraying  the 
historical  persons  whom  he  professes  to  delineate, 
their  habits  and  modes  of  thought,  and  making 
them  fit  in  with  the  historical  facts  of  the  times, 
I  need  hardly  say  that  the  difficulties  must  have 
been  great  indeed  which  must  have  encumbered 

the  credulous  mythologists  who  invented  the 

6 


82  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

mythical  and  legendary  stories  of  which  our  Gos¬ 
pels  are  alleged  to  be  chiefly  composed,  to  adjust 
their  inventions  to  the  facts  of  history  and  to  the 
geography  of  the  places  in  which  the  scenes  are 
alles’cd  to  have  occurred.  Yet  the  allusions  made 
in  these  to  current  ideas  and  events  are  far  more 
numerous  than  those  in  the  plays  in  question,  and 
most  of  them  are  of  the  most  incidental  character; 
yet  every  discovery  in  history  proves  their  cor¬ 
rectness,  even  in  those  cases  which  in  former 
times  have  been  made  subjects  of  dispute.  The 
simple  truth  is,  that  the  more  history  has  been 
explored,  the  more  their  historical  accuracy  has 
been  vindicated.  The  common  sense  of  the  read¬ 
er  will  therefore  lead  him  to  conclude  that  the 
difficulties  would  not  only  have  been  great,  but 
insuperable. 

9.  No  small  portion  of  the  Gospels  is  occupied 
with  giving  an  account  of  our  Lord’s  moral  teach¬ 
ing,  in  which  I  include  his  parabolic  utterances. 
Unbelievers  of  the  type  of  the  late  J.  S.  Mill  are 
ready  to  accept  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Synop¬ 
tic  Gospels  as  the  actual  moral  teaching  of  the 
historic  Jesus,  while  they  deny  everything  in  him 
which  savors  of  the  supernatural.  This  position, 
however,  even  if  it  could  be  admitted  to  be  the 
true  solution  of  the  facts,  leaves  the  real  point  at 
issue  entirely  untouched.  As  I  have  above  ob- 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  83 

served,  the  ground  taken  by  this  eminent  writer 
is,  that  the  moral  teaching  which  these  Gospels 
attribute  to  Jesus  is  so  elevated  above  the  concep¬ 
tions  of  his  followers  that  it  was  absolutely  above 
their  powers  to  have  invented  it.  This  position 
I  cordially  accept.  It  is  founded  on  the  general 
principle  that  a  man  cannot,  by  any  effort  of  his 
own,  raise  himself  more  than  a  few  degrees  above 
that  moral  and  spiritual  atmosphere  in  which  he 
is  born  and  educated.  But  this  being  so,  the  fol¬ 
lowing  question  urgently  demands  an  answer:  If 
Jesus  was  a  mere  man  like  ourselves,  how  became 
he  capable  of  attaining  an  elevation  high  above 
the  surroundings  of  his  birth  and  education?  The 
reader  will  perceive  that  the  position  taken  by  Mr. 
Mill  and  others  does  not  meet  the  difficulty,  but 
only  removes  it  one  step  higher  up.  Those  who 
propound  this  theory  as  an  adequate  solution  of 
the  facts  may  be  justly  called  upon  to  answer  the 
question  which  was  asked  over  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  and  which  remains  unanswered  to  the 
present  day,  except  on  the  assumption  of  the  in¬ 
dwelling  in  him  of  the  superhuman:  Whence  got 
this  man  all  this  wisdom  ? 

But  I  am  persuaded  that  a  careful  perusal  of 
the  Gospels  will  convince  the  reader  that  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  effect  this  separation  between  the  moral 
teaching  of  our  Lord  and  the  supernatural  ele- 


^4  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

ments  which  they  contain.  I  would  ask  him  to 
observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  considerable  por¬ 
tions  of  the  moral  teaching  directly  grow  out  of 
the  miraculous  narrative,  and  cannot  be  separated 
from  it  without  doing  violence  to  the  whole.  Yet 
this  portion  of  it  is  equally  elevated  with  those 
parts  of  it  which  are  not  so  united.  But,  secondly 
and  chiefly,  the  far  larger  proportion  of  it  is  per¬ 
meated  by  utterances  in  which  our  Bord  makes 
claims  of  so  exalted  a  nature  as  to  be  only  consist¬ 
ent  with  the  assumption  that  he  was  conscious  in 
himself  of  the  presence  of  the  divine.  To  the 
general  character  of  these  I  have  already  alluded. 
All  that  I  here  wish  to  observe  is,  that  these  utter¬ 
ances  as  much  involve  the  presence  of  a  superhu¬ 
man  element  as  those  actions  which  are  common¬ 
ly  called  ‘‘  miracles.”  Yet  the  whole  of  this  ele¬ 
vated  moral  teaching  of  Jesus  is  interpenetrated 
with  this  idea.  Throughout  the  Gospels  his  ut¬ 
terances  are  placed  by  himself  on  a  level  with  ac¬ 
knowledged  oracles  from  heaven.  Yet  if  all  the 
superhuman  elements  of  the  Gospels  are  ideal,  all 
the  utterances  which  contain  these  lofty  claims, 
as  well  as  those  which  grow  out  of  the  miraculous 
narratives,  must  have  been  the  inventions  of  the 
mythologists.  From  this  it  follows  that  these 
credulous  and  superstitious  followers  of  Jesus  must 
have  been  men  of  a  moral  ideal  elevated  high 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPEES.  85 

above  the  conceptions  of  their  times,  otherwise 
they  could  not  have  invented  them.  But  this  is 
not  only  contrary  to  the  principle  on  which  Mr. 
Mill’s  reasoning  is  based,  but  is  in  itself  incred¬ 
ible. 

I  must  now  ask  the  reader’s  attention  to  a  few 
striking  traits  in  our  Lord’s  moral  teaching.  Ta¬ 
ken  as  a  whole,  it  possesses  that  unity  of  concep¬ 
tion  which  is  the  acknowledged  characteristic  of 
the  productions  of  single  minds.  It  bears  none  of 
the  marks  which  a  set  of  aphorisms  bear  when 
they  have  been  selected  out  of  a  number  of  other 
systems  and  attempted  to  be  woven  into  a  whole. 
It  is  admitted  to  be  a  moral  system  of  the  greatest 
elevation.  It  is  one  which  is  catholic;  i.  e.,  it  is 
one  founded  on  nothing  which  is  merely  local  or 
temporary,  but  is  applicable  to  the  whole  family 
of  man.  It  is  one  in  which  the  principles  of  cas¬ 
uistry  find  no  place.  It  comprehends  in  itself  all 
possible  moral  obligation,  and  embraces  in  its 
great  principles  every  duty  which  is  due  from 
man  to  God  or  from  man  to  man.  It  is  one  im¬ 
mensely  elevated  above  the  moral  and  spiritual 
atmosphere  of  the  times  in  which  it  originated, 
and  of  the  narrow-minded  of  the  particular  race 
in  the  midst  of  which  it  was  born.  All  these  are 
simple  facts,  and  many  others  might  be  added. 

Now  if,  in  accordance  with  the  general  theory 


86  the:  unity  of  the:  character  of 

I  am  controverting,  the  Gospels  chiefly  consist  of 
a  mass  of  myths  and  legends,  it  follows  that  those 
portions  of  their  moral  teaching  which  are  closely 
interwoven  with  their  legendary  matter  must  have 
been  the  invention  of  mythologists,  who  must 
.  have  spontaneously  elaborated  portions  of  it, 
which  have  been  woven  into  a  whole  by  the  au¬ 
thors  of  our  present  Gospels.  Further,  numerous 
as  they  were,  they  must  not  only  have  been  all 
elevated  above  the  conception  of  the  times  in 
which  they  lived,  but  they  must  have  concurred 
as  to  the  line  of  moral  teaching  which  was  to  be 
attributed  to  Jesus,  and  as  to  what  constituted  the 
highest  type  of  morality.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  urged  that  the  authors  of  our  Gospels  selected 
those  of  the  current  legends  which  presented  an 
elevated  type  of  morality,  and  rejected  the  re¬ 
mainder,  then  not  only  would  the  Gospels  bear 
clear  indications  of  such  a  selection,  but  it  would 
still  be  necessary  to  attribute  the  invention  of  this 
elevated  moral  teaching  to  a  number  of  credu¬ 
lous  mythologists.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  for  me 
to  waste  the  reader’s  time  in  proving  that  the  the¬ 
ories  above  referred  to  are  utterly  incredible. 

lo.  The  mythologists  who  invented  the  ideal 
matter  of  which  the  Gospels  are  alleged  mainly 
to  consist  must  have  been  men  of  either  Jewish 
or  Grecian  culture.  Of  these  the  former  must 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  8/ 

have  been  by  far  the  most  numerous;  and  we 
have  abundant  testimony  how  deeply  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  Judaism  were  impressed  on  the  Jews  of 
the  apostolic  age.  But  according  to  all  the  laws 
which  regulate  the  production  of  myths  and  leg¬ 
ends,  such  productions  are  an  embodiment  of  the 
feelings  and  ideas  of  their  inventors;  i.  e.,  those 
invented  by  Jews  would  have  been  an  embodi¬ 
ment  of  Jewish,  and  those  by  Greeks  of  the  Gre¬ 
cian  type  of  thought.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  Jesus  of  the  evangelists  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  nor  an  amalgamation  of  both,  but  as  broad 
as  humanity  itself ;  i.  e.,  he  is  a  character  com¬ 
pletely  catholic.  What  follows  ?  If  the  theories 
against  which  I  am  contending  are  correct,  these 
credulous  mythologists  must  have  concurred, 
without  previous  concert,  in  delineating  a  num¬ 
ber  of  ideal  creations,  which,  when  placed  side 
by  side  in  our  Gospels,  have  formed  the  great 
character  which  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  but 
absolutely  catholic.  The  reader  will,  I  think,  be 
of  opinion  that  such  a  theory  is  absolutely  incred¬ 
ible. 

II.  The  Evolution  theory,  or  the  theory  of 
tendencies,  has  some  difficulties  which  are  pecu¬ 
liar  to  itself,  to  which  I  must  invite  the  attention 
of  the  reader.  Briefly  stated,  this  theory  is  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 


88  THE  UNITY  OU  THE  CHARACTER  OR 

According  to  it  the  primitive  churches  were 
divided  into  a  number  of  discordant  sects,  among 
whom  party  spirit  raged  with  violence.  These 
elaborated  a  set  of  doctrines  and  fictitious  stories 
for  the  purpose  of  embodying  their  own  particular 
tendencies.  When  this  sectarian  spirit  had  risen 
to  a  dangerous  height,  it  was  found  desirable 
to  effect  compromises  between  these  discordant 
schools.  Of  this  spirit  of  compromise  St.  Luke’s 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are^alleged 
to  be  striking  examples.  Both  works  are  said  to 
have  been  composed  for  the  purpose  of  mediating 
between  two  contending  parties,  the  Petrine  and 
the  Pauline,  and  thereby  of  aiding  in  the  creation 
of  a  common  Christianity,  For  this  purpose  their 
author  is  alleged  to  have  largely  modified  the 
materials  of  which  he  was  in  possession,  and  to 
have  imparted  a  strong  coloring  to  most  of  the 
miracles  whieh  are  recorded  in  the  latter  book,  if 
he  did  not  actually  invent  them. 

In  addition  to  the  difficulties  with  which  this 
theory,  in  common  with  those  which  we  have  al¬ 
ready  considered,  is  encumbered,  it  contains  one 
remarkable  assumption  which  contradicts  all  the 
facts  of  human  nature.  It  assumes  that  a  number 
of  compromises  have  been  effected  in  the  church, 
and  that  catholic  Christianity  has  grown  out  of 
them.  But  what  says  the  voice  of  history  respect- 


TIIK  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


89 


ing  the  quarrels  of  religious  creeds?  Do  they 
effect  compromises  ?  Do  they  conclude  treaties 
or  propound  irenicons?  Have  mediators  arisen 
who  have  succeeded  in  forming  out  of  several  con¬ 
tending  sects  a  united  church?  On  these  points 
history  returns  no  ambiguous  answer.  Party  spirit 
in  religion,  instead  of  effecting  compromises,  goes 
on  continually  widening.  Witness  the  history  of 
the  internal  divisions  of  all  the  religions  in  the 
world.  When  have  a  number  of  contending  sects 
fused  into  one,  and  out  of  the  fusion  erected  a 
common  church?  It  has  passed  into  a  common 
proverb  that  nothing  is  more  irreconcilable  than 
religious  divisions.  Yet  without  these  compro¬ 
mises  the  theory  of  tendencies  cannot  advance  a 
step.  It  is  one,  therefore,  which,  while  it  may 
look  plausible  in  the  study,  is  dashed  to  pieces 
against  the  facts  of  history  and  the  realities  of 
human  nature. 

It  is  a  matter  of  indifference  with  respect  to 
the  foregoing  arguments  whether  the  materials 
out  of  which  the  evangelists  composed  our  Gos¬ 
pels  were  oral  traditions,  or,  as  some  contend, 
written  documents,  or  were  partly  written  and 
partly  oral.  If  we  adopt  the  theory  that  the  Sy¬ 
noptic  Gospels  were  composed  by  the  aid  of  pre¬ 
viously  existing  documents,  then  it  is  evident  that 
the  character  which  they  delineate  must  have  been 


90  THK  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

already  portrayed  in  these  documents,  only  with 
somewhat  less  of  detail.  The  question  therefore 
still  demands  an  answer,  How  did  it  get  into  these 
earlier  documents?  The  documents  themselves 
must  have  been  composed  from  traditions,  which, 
if  the  Gospels  are  unhistorical,  must  have  been  a 
set  of  legendary  inventions.  It  follows,  therefore, 
whether  we  assume  the  Gospels  to  have  been  com¬ 
posed  by  the  aid  of  existing  documents,  or  that 
the  evangelists  drew  directly  from  tradition,  that 
the  portraiture  of  Jesus  must  have  been  formed 
out  of  what  was  once  a  floating  mass  of  legends ; 
and  further,  that  these  legends  must  have  had 
numerous  inventors. 

It  follows,  therefore,  whatever  alternative  we 
adopt,  that  the  great  character  delineated  in  the 
Gospels  must  have  been  the  creation  of  the  per¬ 
sons  who  originally  invented  the  legends  of  which 
it  is  composed,  each  one  having  portrayed  that 
portion  of  it  which  is  contained  in  the  narrative 
which  he  invented.  The  only  other  possible  sup¬ 
position  is  that  the  conception  of  the  character 
was  already  so  deeply  impressed  on  the  minds  of 
the  mythologists  that  the  legends  which  they  in¬ 
vented  became  stamped  with  its  moral  impress ; 
but  this  supposition  is  inconsistent  with  the  theo¬ 
ries  which  we  have  been  considering,  for  it  pre¬ 
supposes  the  character  already  to  have  been  in 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  91 

existence,  and  consequently  to  have  been  the  de¬ 
lineation  of  a  historical  reality. 

I  have  assumed  throughout  this  entire  argu¬ 
ment  that  the  reader  of  the  Gospels  instinctively 
perceives  that  the  delineation  of  their  Christ  con¬ 
stitutes  a  unity  of  conception.  I  do  not  think  that 
this  has  ever  been  denied  with  respect  to  the  Sy¬ 
noptics,  except  in  a  very  few  cases,  which  are  not 
worthy  of  notice,  against  the  all  but  universal 
consent  to  the  contrary.  The  objections  which 
have  been  urged  against  the  character  are  direct¬ 
ed  against  the  perfection  of  certain  aspects  of  it, 
such  as  those  which  have  been  urged  by  Mr.  F. 
Newman  and  a  similar  class  of  objectors.  Into 
their  minute  and  frequently  most  captious  criti¬ 
cisms  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter;  the  fact  will 
be  sufficient  that  its  greatness  is  not  only  unani¬ 
mously  affirmed  by  Christians,  but  freely  conce¬ 
ded  by  the  majority  of  eminent  unbelievers.  But 
the  case  is  somewhat  different  with  respect  to  the 
fourth  Gospel.  It  has  been  affirmed  that  the  Je¬ 
sus  of  this  Gospel  differs  widely  from  the  Jesus  of 
the  Synoptics. 

Here  I  would  ask  the  reader  particularly  to 
observe  that  if  all  that  has  been  alleged  by  critical 
unbelief  on  this  subject  were  conceded  to  be  cor¬ 
rect,  the  above  arguments  will  remain  totally 
unaffected  by  this  concession.  The  unity  of  the 


92  TIIK  UNITY  OU  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

character  of  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is 
sufficient  to  sustain  their  entire  weight.  Even  if 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John  were  proved  to  be  a  for¬ 
gery,  and  its  portraiture  to  be  that  of  a  different 
Christ  from  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptics,  still  it 
would  be  impossible  to  account  for  the  unity  of 
the  character  of  the  Synoptic  Christ  except  on 
the  assumption  that  it  is  the  delineation  of  a 
historical  reality.  The  question  would  still  re¬ 
tain  all  its  force.  If  it  is  an  ideal  creation,  how 
did  their  portraitures  get  into  the  Synoptics? 
The  argument  is  undoubtedly  strengthened  if 
the  four  portraitures  are  portraitures  of  one  and 
the  same  Christ;  but  it  does  not  depend  on  this  for 
its  validity,  nor  does  the  assumption  of  the  unhis- 
torical  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel  get  rid  of  one 
of  the  difficulties  with  which  the  theories  which 
are  propounded  by  unbelievers  are  attended. 
My  position,  however,  is  that  the  four  portrai¬ 
tures  are  portraitures  of  one  and  the  same  Christ, 
only  differing  from  one  another  in  the  point  of 
view  at  which  they  have  been  taken;  but  I  fully 
admit  that  the  point  of  view  from  which  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  contemplated  the 
character  differs  more  from  that  of  the  Synoptics 
than  any  one  of  the  three  differs  from  the  others. 

The  facts  stand  as  follows:  While  it  is  un¬ 
questionable  that  the  Jesus  of  the  fourth  Gospel 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPELS. 


93 


habitually  makes  higher  assertions  respecting 
himself  than  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics,  the  Jesus 
of  the  Synoptics  puts  in  claims  in  his  various 
utterances  of  which  the  truth  of  the  assertions  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  the  vindication.  My  mean¬ 
ing  will  be  rendered  clear  by  a  few  illustrations. 
In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  our  Lord  claims  for 
his  utterances,  as  legislator  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  not  only  a  higher  authority  than  those 
which  Moses  uttered  in  the  name  of  God,  but  that 
they  are  on  a  level  with  those  uttered  by  the  di¬ 
vine  voice  at  Sinai.  In  like  manner,  throughout 
his  entire  teaching,  he  speaks  in  the  highest  tones 
of  authority ;  but  the  authority  is  none  other  than 
his  own.  This  authoritative  form  of  his  utter¬ 
ances,  as  we  are  informed  by  the  evangelists, 
formed  a  very  striking  feature  in  his  teaching, 
and  particularly  arrested  the  attention  of  his  hear¬ 
ers.  St.  Matthew  says  (7:29):  “The  multitudes 
were  astonished  at  his  teaching,  for  he  spake  as 
one  having  authority.”  He  also  claims  su¬ 
preme  regard  and  the  highest  self-sacrifice  on 
the  part  of  his  disciples,  founded  on  his  own  in¬ 
herent  worthiness — a  regard  so  great  as  to  be 
entitled  to  supersede  the  strongest  natural  ties 
which  unite  man  to  man.  Thus  he  affirms: 
“He  that  loveth  father  and  mother  more  than 
me  is  not  worthy  of  me;  he  that  loveth  son  or 


94  the  unity  oe  the  character  of 

* 

daughter  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me;  he 
that  taketh  not  up  his  cross  and  followeth  after 
me,  is  not  worthy  of  me.’^  Matt.  10:36,  37. 
Again, 

“Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  be  ashamed  of 
me  and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful 
generation,  of  him  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  be 
ashamed  when  he  comes  in  the  glory  of  his  Fa¬ 
ther  with  the  holy  angels.  Also  I  say  unto  you, 
whosoever  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  shall 
the  Son  of  Man  also  confess  before  the  angels  of 
God ;  but  he  that  denieth  me  before  men  shall  be 
denied  before  the  angels  of  God.”  Matt.  8:38; 
Luke  12:8,  9.  Again  and  again  he  affirms  that 
he  it  is,  and  no  other,  who  will  determine  the 
final  destinies  of  man,  as  a  righteous  judge,  in 
conformity  with  their  conduct  here;  and  in  a  re¬ 
markable  parabolic  utterance  he  gives  us  the 
delineation  of  himself  as  the  king  thus  seated  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory  with  all  nations  assem¬ 
bled  before  him.  Further,  in  performing  his  mir¬ 
acles  he  unifoimly  works  them  in  his  own  name, 
without  referring  to  any  other  than  himself.  Thus 
a  suppliant  leper  cries,  “Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou 
canst  make  me  clean.”  “I  will,”  is  the  reply. 
“Be  thou  clean.  And  immediately  his  leprosy 
was  cleansed.”  Matt.  8:3.  Again,  to  the  sick  of 
the  palsy,  ‘  ‘  I  say  unto  thee.  Arise,  take  up  thy 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPELS.  95 

bed.  ’  ’  Mark  2:11.  And  in  the  case  of  every  other 
miracle  he  uses  similar  language.  The  careful 
reader  of  the  Synoptics  will  find  numerous  in¬ 
stances  of  these  authoritative  utterances,  which 
it  is  unnecessary  to  particularise. 

These  and  other  similar  claims  which  are 
made  by  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics  would  be  the 
height  of  presumption  if  their  utterer  were  a  mere 
man  who  was  devoid  of  all  consciousness  of  the 
indwelling  of  the  divine.  In  fact  their  arrogance 
would  be  so  great  as  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
presence  of  holiness,  not  to  say  humility,  in  any 
purely  human  character.  They  are  indefinitely 
higher  than  those  made  by  the  greatest  of  great 
men  known  to  history.  Neither  prophet  nor 
apostle  ventures  to  use  such  language.  Their 
only  vindication  is  the  consciousness  on  the  part 
of  the  utterer  of  the  indwelling  of  the  divine. 

This  being  so,  the  utterances  of  our  Tord  in 
the  fourth  Gospel,  if  true,  are  their  ample  vindi¬ 
cation.  The  case  stands  thus: 

This  Gospel  is  the  complement  of  the  utter¬ 
ances  in  the  Synoptics,  and  the  claims  put  forth 
in  the  Synoptics  of  the  utterances  in  the  fourth 
Gospel.  “My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I 
work,”  is  the  utterance  of  the  Christ  of  St.  John. 
The  Synoptic  Christ  says,  “Stretch  forth  thy 
hand,  ’  ’  and  the  hand  is  restored. 


q6  "thh  unity  ot  the;  character  of 

But  although  our  I^ord’s  aflSrmations  respect- 
ting  himself  are  more  lofty  than  those  in  the 
Synoptics,  his  teaching  in  both  is  indelibly  im¬ 
pressed  with  the  same  moral  character;  it  is  in 
fact  the  teaching  of  the  same  Jesus. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  we  compare  the 
two  sets  of  narratives  as  distinct  from  the  dis¬ 
courses,  the  two  characters  which  they  delineate 
are  identical.  It  has  been  alleged  that  the  Johan- 
nine  Christ  is  depicted  as  more  divine -and  less 
human  than  the  Synoptic  Christ.  This  I  deny; 
and  as  the  point  is  one  of  considerable  importance, 
I  must  afford  proof  of  it.  One  passage  in  the 
Synoptics  contains  affirmations  made  by  our  Lord 
respecting  himself  quite  as  elevated  as  anything 
which  can  be  found  in  the  fourth  Gospel;  in  fact, 
it  forms  their  connecting  link.  It  is  as  follows: 

“At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I 
thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
because  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise 
and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes. 
Even  so.  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy 
sight.  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my 
Father;  and  none  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father, 
neither  knoweth  any  the  Father  save  the  Son, 
and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him. 
Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPEES.  97 

Upon  you,  and  learn  of  me,  for  I  am  meek  and 
lowly  in  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your 
souls;  for  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  light.” 
Matt.  11:25-30. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  utterance  of 
our  Lord  which  is  recorded  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
which  claims  for  himself  a  more  superhuman 
character  than  the  one  before  us.  It  affirms  that 
he  possesses  an  exclusive  knowledge  of  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  and  that  none  knows  him  but  the  Father, 
or  the  Father  but  himself,  and  that  all  things  are 
delivered  by  the  Father  into  his  hands;  and  in 
virtue  of  this  superhuman  character  he  invites 
those  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden  to  obtain 
rest  in  him,  affirming  that  the  yoke  and  the  bur¬ 
den  which  he  will  impose  on  them  is  light;  but 
at  the  same  time  they  are  his  yoke  and  his  bur¬ 
den. 

But  while  the  fourth  Gospel  frequently  attrib¬ 
utes  to  our  Lord  the  strong  dogmatical  assertions 
respecting  the  dignity  of  his  person  which  we 
read  in  its  pages,  it  delineates  the  other  portions 
of  his  character  as  being  equally  human  as  those 
in  the  Synoptics.  Thus  St.  John  describes  him 
as  sitting  at  Jacob’s  well,  wearied  with  his  jour¬ 
ney;  the  Synoptics  on  several  occasions  describe 
him  as  retiring  to  rest  himself  after  his  day’s 

labor.  In  the  account  of  the  resurrection  of 

7 


98  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

Lazarus,  the  fourth  Gospel  represents  him  as 
shedding  tears  of  sympathy,  and  the  whole  de¬ 
scription,  while  attributing  to  him  a  highly  divine 
character,  invests  him  with  a  number  of  character¬ 
istics  which  are  preeminently  human.  Similarly 
the  third  Gospel  depicts  him  as  shedding  tears, 
and  uttering  the  most  pathetic  lamentation  over 
Jerusalem  and  its  impending  ruin.  So  again 
the  description  of  the  last  supper  in  the  Johan- 
nine  Gospel  delineates  him  as  exhibiting  precise¬ 
ly  the  same  aspects  of  character  as  in  the  Synop¬ 
tics,  only  in  the  former  its  traits  are  more  deli¬ 
cately  drawn.  Similar  also  is  the  narrative  of 
the  betrayal,  the  trial,  and  the  crucifixion.  All 
this  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  theory  which 
asserts  that  the  author  of  this  Gospel  was  so  in¬ 
tent  on  delineating  a  divine  Christ  that  he  has 
suppressed  some  of  those  human  aspects  of  his 
character  which  are  conspicuous  in  the  Synop¬ 
tics.  In  both  the  identity  of  character  is  unmis¬ 
takable. 

This  identity  will  become  apparent  if  we  in¬ 
stitute  a  comparison  between  an  entire  section  in 
the  Synoptics  and  a  corresponding  one  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  As  it  is  the  longest  and  most 
complete,  I  will  take  that  which,  on  the  theory 
that  the  Gospels  are  unhistorical,  may  not  in¬ 
aptly  be  designated  the  Drama  of  the  Passion. 


THE  CHRIST  OR  THE  GOSPELS.  99 

It  will  only  be  necessary  to  notice  the  chief  in¬ 
cidents. 

The  narrative  in  question  begins  with  the  ac¬ 
count  of  the  anointing  of  our  Lord  at  Bethany. 
It  is  narrated  both  by  the  Synoptics  and  St.  John, 
but  in  a  different  connection.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  latter  omits  an  utterance  of  our  Lord 
which  proves  that  He  accepted  the  act  as  having 
a  certain  divine  significance:  “Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Wheresoever  this  gospel  shall  be  preached 
in  the  whole  world,  there  shall  also  this  that  this 
woman  hath  done  be  told  for  a  memorial  of  her.  ’  ’ 
Matt.  26  : 13.  But  in  all  other  respects  the  de¬ 
scriptions  are  precisely  alike. 

To  this  follows  the  account  in  the  fourth  Gos¬ 
pel  of  the  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  in 
which  all  four  evangelists  represent  our  Lord  as, 
prior  to  his  great  act  of  self-sacrifice,  assuming 
the  character  of  the  King  Messiah.  Notwith¬ 
standing  a  considerable  number  of  minor  varia¬ 
tions,  the  delineations  are  similar  throughout, 
except  that  the  Synoptics  attribute  to  him  the 
high  Messianic  act  of  cleansing  the  temple,  which 
in  this  place  is  omitted  by  St.  John.  At  this 
point  the  narratives  diverge,  those  of  the  Synop¬ 
tics  representing  him  as  engaged  during  the  days 
which  intervened  between  his  entry  and  his  pas¬ 
sion  in  teaching  in  the  temple  and  in  discussions 


lOO  the  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

with  the  Jews,  while  that  of  St.  John  records  only 
an  interview  with  some  Greeks,  in  which  he  is 
depicted  in  an  aspect  preeminently  human.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Synoptical  delineations  depict 
our  I^ord  during  this  interval  in  an  attitude  pre¬ 
eminently  divine.  I  allude  to  his  great  eschato¬ 
logical  discourse,  which  is  recorded  by  all  three 
Synoptics,  and  the  supplemental  parable  of  the 
last  judgment,  which  is  attributed  to  him  by  St. 
Matthew. 

This  discourse,  in  conjunction  with  this  par¬ 
able,  contains  the  greatest  and  most  perfect  de¬ 
lineation  of  our  Tord  in  the  divine  and  human 
aspects  of  his  character  which  is  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  certainly  not  ex¬ 
ceeded  by  anything  which  is  affirmed  respecting 
him  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  So  far  the  aspect  of 
the  Christ  of  this  Gospel  is  more  human  than  the 
Christ  of  the  Synoptics. 

Next  follows  the  narrative  of  the  last  supper. 
That  of  John,  while  differing  in  numerous  points 
of  minor  details,  which  have  no  bearing  on  our 
present  argument,  from  those  of  the  Synoptics, 
consists  of  three  scenes — the  washing  of  the  dis¬ 
ciples’  feet,  the  detection  and  exposure  of  Judas, 
and  the  warning  given  to  Peter.  In  each  of  these 
our  Tord  is  delineated  as  the  perfect  combination 
of  dignity  with  humility  and  condescending  love, 


THE  CHRIST  OE  THE  GOSPEES. 


lOl 


yet  in  an  aspect  exquisitely  human.  No  bare  de¬ 
scription  of  it  will  do  it  justice. 

But  how  stands  the  case  with  the  Synoptics  ? 
It  is  clear  that  all  four  evangelists  intended  on 
this  occasion  to  delineate  our  Lord  in  his  pro- 
foundest  humiliation  ;  and  it  is  equally  certain, 
notwithstanding  their  variations,  that  the  concep¬ 
tion  is  identical  in  all  four  writers.  The  last  two 
inciden^  in  thejohannine  account  form  a  portion 
of  that  of  the  Synoptics,  while  the  first  is  omitted; 
and  in  St.  Luke’s  Gospel  there  is  inserted  in  place 
of  it  an  account  of  a  contest  for  superiority  among 
the  disciples  at  the  very  supper- table,  and  our 
Lord’s  rebuke  of  it.  This  discourse,  however, 
contains  a  very  remarkable  utterance  of  our  Lord 
(Luke  22  : 29,  30):  “And  I  appoint  unto  you  a 
kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me, 
that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my 
kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel.”  It  thus  combines  the  highest 
self-assertion  with  profound  humiliation. 

So  far  the  Johannine  narrative,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  discourses,  does  not  disclose  a 
single  trait  of  a  conscious  purpose  to  depict  a 
more  divine  Christ,  or  to  invest  him  with  less  hu¬ 
man  feelings,  than  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptics. 

But  how  about  the  long  discourse  in  chapters 
14,  15,  and  16  of  St.  John’s  Gospel,  terminated 


102  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

by  the  prayer  of  intercession  ?  Is  not  this  intend¬ 
ed  to  invest  our  I^ord  with  a  halo  of  glory  prior  to 
his  passion,  and  to  depict  him  as  preeminently 
divine  ?  I  answer  that  the  divine  aspect  of  his 
character  as  set  forth  in  this  discourse  is  not 
greater  than  in  Matthew  24  and  25,  which  was 
uttered  less  than  two  days  before  the  one  we  are 
now  considering,  both  alike  being  spoken  under 
the  shadow  of  the  cross.  In  both  our  Lqrd  is  de¬ 
scribed  as  investing  himself  with  superhuman 
greatness  immediately  before  his  deepest  humili¬ 
ation,  and  in  both  alike  he  is  invested  with  sym¬ 
pathies  preeminently  human.  So  far  the  Christ 
of  this  Gospel  is  certainly  identical  with  the  Christ 
of  the  Synoptics. 

We  now  pass  on  to  the  scenes  of  the  arrest  and 
trial.  Here  the  details  differ  considerably,  the 
Johannine  narrative  passing  over  in  silence  the 
account  of  the  agony  in  the  Garden;  yet  the  same 
fundamental  conception  pervades  all  four  narra¬ 
tives,  viz.,  that  of  our  Lord’s  voluntary  self-sur¬ 
render.  This  is  expressed  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
by  the  mode  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  go¬ 
ing  to  meet  the  band  at  the  entrance  of  the  Gar¬ 
den;  in  the  Synoptics,  by  the  declaration  that  he 
had  only  to  pray  to  his  Father,  and  He  would 
presently  send  him  more  than  twelve  legions  of 
angels.  It  is  simply  absurd  to  affirm  that  either 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  IO3 

incident  was  invented  for  the  purpose  of  height¬ 
ening  the  effect  Certainly  his  consciousness,  as 
it  is  depicted  by  St  John,  is  not  more  divine  than 
as  it  is  depicted  by  the  Synoptics.  Both  delinea¬ 
tions  are  portraitures  of  Jesus  supported  by  the 
consciousness  of  the  indwelling  of  the  divine  in 
the  act  of  voluntarily  yielding  himself  up  to  death. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  Synoptics  describe 
him  immediately  before  his  condemnation  as  ma¬ 
king  a  deliberate  assertion  of  his  superhuman 
character  in  the  presence  of  the  Jewish  council, 
which  incident  is  passed  over  in  silence  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  The  only  counterpart  to  it  in  this 
Gospel  is  our  kord’s  assertion  of  his  royal  dignity 
before  Pilate.  Thus  each  character  fits  harmoni¬ 
ously  into  the  other. 

But  what  about  the  omission  in  this  Gospel  of 
the  account  of  the  agony  in  the  Garden  ?  Is  not 
the  objection  which  has  often  been  urged  true, 
that  its  author  omitted  it  of  set  purpose,  fearing 
that  his  divine  Christ  could  not  endure  the  weight 
of  so  great  a  humiliation?  That  such  an  objec¬ 
tion  can  have  been  made  in  the  face  of  the  facts 
above  referred  to,  and  numerous  others  contained 
in  this  Gospel,  is  only  one  of  many  proofs  that  the 
enunciators  of  certain  theories  are  ready  to  accept 
anything  which  is  in  accordance  with  their  pre¬ 
conceived  opinions  on  a  very  slender  foundation 


104  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF 

of  evidence.  It  is  now  impossible  to  determine 
with  absolute  certainty  what  was  the  reason  which 
induced  the  author  of  this  Gospel  to  omit  from  his 
account  of  the  passion  any  reference  to  the  agony 
in  the  garden ;  but  nothing  can  be  more  certain 
than  that  it  could  not  have  been  that  which  has 
been  alleged  by  the  school  of  critics  to  which  I 
allude ;  for  while  he  has  omitted  the  account  of 
the  agony,  he  alone  of  the  evangelists  gives  us  an 
account  of  another  perturbation  of  our  Lord  occa¬ 
sioned  by  the  prospect  of  his  sufferings  and  death, 
which  occurred  only  two  days  previously.  Both 
accounts  depict  him  in  aspects  equally  human.  It 
will  be  necessary  to  set  both  before  the  reader. 

The  following  is  the  Johannine  portraiture  : 

“And  Jesus  answered  them,  saying.  The  hour 
is  come  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  a  corn  of 
wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth 
alone:  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.  .  . . 
Now  is  my  soul  troubled;  and  what  shall  I  say? 
Father,  save  me  from  this  hour:  but  for  this  cause 
came  I  unto  this  hour.  Father,  glorify  thy  name. 
Then  came  there  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I 
have  both  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it  again. .  . . 
Jesus  answered  and  said.  This  voice  came  not  be¬ 
cause  of  me,  but  for  your  sakes.  Now  is  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  this  world :  now  shall  the  prince  of  this 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  105 

world  be  cast  out.  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from 
the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me.”  John 
12:23-32. 

The  following  is  one  of  the  Synoptical  deline¬ 
ations  of  the  subsequent  agony : 

He  said  unto  them,  “Sit  ye  here  while  I  go 
and  pray  yonder.  And  he  took  with  him  Peter 
and  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  began  to  be  sor¬ 
rowful  and  very  heavy.  Then  saith  he  unto  them. 
My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death: 
tarry  ye  here,  and  watch  with  me.  And  he  went 
a  little  farther,  and  fell  on  his  face,  and  prayed, 
saying,  O  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup 
pass  from  me:  nevertheless,  not  as  I  will,  but  as 
thou  wilt.  And  he  cometh  unto  the  disciples, 
and  findeth  them  asleep,  and  saith  unto  Peter, 
What,  could  ye  not  watch  with  me  one  hour? 
Watch  and  pray,  that  ye  enter  not  into  tempta¬ 
tion:  the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is 
weak.  And  he  went  away  again  the  second  time, 
and  prayed,  saying,  O  my  Father,  if  this  cup  may 
not  pass  away  from  me,  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will 
be  done.  And  he  came  and  found  them  asleep 
again :  for  their  eyes  were  heavy.  And  he  left 
them,  and  went  away  again,  and  prayed  the  third 
time,  saying  the  same  words.  ’  ’  Matt.  26  :  36-44. 

On  this  follows  the  narrative  of  his  voluntary 
surrender  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 


io6  thk  unity  of  the:  character  of 

The  reader  will  observe  that  the  sentiment 
expressed  in  both  passages  is  identical,  vi^.,  that 
Jesus  was  perturbed  at  the  contemplation  of  his 
sufferings  now  just  impending  over  him,  that  he 
uttered  a  prayer  for  deliverance  from  them,  and 
that  after  the  prayer  perfect  calmness  returned 
and  the  full  purpose  of  submission  to  the  divine 
will.  So  far  the  Synoptic  narrative  of  the  Agony 
differs  from  the  perturbation  described  by  St.  John 
only  in  the  threefold  repetition  of  the  prayer  and 
in  the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed.  Both 
alike  are  described  as  having  been  uttered  under 
the  immediate  shadow  of  the  cross. 

If  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  forgery,  its  author 
must  have  been  an  adept  at  his  art,  for  its  deline¬ 
ations  are  almost  perfect  of  their  kind.  But  the 
idea  that  he  invented  the  narrative  of  the  pertur¬ 
bation,  and  suppressed  that  of  the  agony  for  the 
purpose  of  imparting  a  more  divine  aspect  to  his 
Master’s  character,  is  only  consistent  with  his 
having  been  little  better  than  a  bungler;  for  the 
description  of  the  Synoptics  is  the  grander  of  the 
two,  and  the  submission  of  the  will  of  the  sufferer 
to  that  of  the  Father  is  absolute  and  complete. 
The  struggle  and  final  submission,  as  it  is  depict¬ 
ed  in  the  Synoptics,  is  Godlike  and,  at  the  same 
time,  intensely  human,  and  is  strictly  in  conform¬ 
ity  with  the  character  of  the  Johannine  Christ. 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  107 

The  narrative  of  the  condemnation  and  of  the 
crucifixion  calls  for  little  remark.  Here  again 
the  incidents  are  extremely  varied;  but  this  only 
imparts  a  greater  force  to  my  argument:  for  not 
a  single  circumstance  affects  the  identity  of  the 
character.  It  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  the  au¬ 
thor  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  imparted  a  more 
divine  or  a  less  human  character  to  our  kord, 
either  before  Pilate  or  on  the  cross,  than  is  attrib¬ 
uted  to  him  by  the  Synoptics.  If  he  has  omitted 
the  cry,  “My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  for¬ 
saken  me?”  which  is  attributed  to  him  by  the  lat¬ 
ter,  he  has  inserted  that  of  “  I  thirst,”  which  they 
pass  over  in  silence.  Surely  this  is  as  truly  hu¬ 
man  as  the  former.  Again,  if  he  has  attributed 
to  him,  just  prior  to  his  death,  the  triumphant 
cry,  “It  is  finished,”  we  know  from  the  Synop¬ 
tics  that  he  uttered  some  cry  which  infused  awe 
into  the  mind  of  the  centurion,  and  the  exclama¬ 
tion  itself  has  its  complete  counterpart  in  St. 
Luke’s  Gospel,  in  his  answer  to  the  prayer  of  the 
repentant  robber  that  he  would  remember  him 
when  he  came  into  his  kingdom  :  “Verily  I  say 
unto  thee.  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Para¬ 
dise.” 

From  these  considerations  the  following  con¬ 
clusion  is  a  necessary  consequence.  The  Johan- 
nine  Christ  and  the  Synoptic  Christ  are  portrai- 


io8  the  unity  of  the  character  of 

tures  of  the  same  cliaracter,  only  varying  from 
each  other  in  the  points  of  view  from  which  their 
authors  contemplated  them ;  and  the  more  nu¬ 
merous  the  variations  are  in  the  details,  the  strong¬ 
er  is  the  evidence  which  they  afford  of  identity; 
for  if  there  had  been  any  conscious  purpose  of  im¬ 
parting  a  more  divine  character  to  his  Christ  than 
the  reality  in  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  it 
would  have  certainly  manifested  itself  in  these  va¬ 
riations.  The  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the  evan¬ 
gelists,  therefore,  not  only  forms  a  harmonious 
unity  of  character  throughout,  but  the  assertion 
that  the  Johannine  Christ  differs  in  point  of  char¬ 
acter  from  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptics  is  utterly 
unfounded.  Our  position,  therefore,  is  a  most 
favorable  one.  We  have  not  one  only,  but  four 
portraitures  of  our  Cord,  no  two  of  which  are 
identical,  thus  proving  the  independence  of  the 
delineators ;  but  all  four  possessing  that  essential 
unity  of  conception  which  is  the  characteristic  of 
historical  reality,  but  which  is  unattainable  in  the 
ideal  inventions  of  multitudes  of  mythologists. 

In  conclusion,  there  are  only  two  possible  al¬ 
ternatives  :  the  portraiture  of  the  Christ  of  the 
Gospels  is  either  the  delineation  of  a  historical 
reality,  or  it  is  an  ideal  creation.  The  first  of 
these  alternatives  satisfies  all  the  historical  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  case;  the  second,  none.  Nay,  more, 


THK  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPHTS.  IO9 

as  I  have  proved  above,  it  involves  a  mass  of 
hopeless  contradictions  and  absurdities,  in  the 
possibility  of  which  reason  refuses  to  believe.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  portraiture  of  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  the  delineation  of  a  his¬ 
torical  reality.  This  being  so,  Christianity  car¬ 
ries  with  it  all  the  consequences  of  being  a  divine 
revelation.  These  consequences  I  will  sum  up  in 
our  Gord’s  own  words: 

“Jesus  cried  and  said,  He  that  believeth  on 
me  believeth  not  on  me,  but  on  him  that  sent 
me.  And  he  that  beholdeth  me  beholdeth  him 
that  sent  me.  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world, 
that  whosoever  believeth  on  me  may  not  abide  in 
darkness.  And  if  any  man  hear  my  sayings,  and 
keep  them  not,  I  judge  him  not :  for  I  came  not 
to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  He 
that  rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  sayings, 
hath  one  that  judgetti  him :  the  word  that  I  spake, 
the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day.  For  I 
spake  not  from  myself;  but  the  Father  which  sent 
me,  he  hath  given  me  a  commandment,  what  I 
should  say,  and  what  I  should  speak.  And  I 
know  that  his  commandment  is  life  eternal:  the 
things  therefore  which  I  speak,  even  as  the  Fa¬ 
ther  hath  said  unto  me,  so  I  speak.”  John 
12  :  44-50,  Revised  Version. 

Tet  us  therefore  accept  his  gracious  invita- 


no 


the:  CHRIST  OF  THF  GOSPFTS. 


tion:  “Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my 
yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me;  for  I  am  meek 
and  lowly  in  heart :  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto 
your  souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden 
is  light”  (Matt,  ii  128-30);  and  his  declaration 
that  his  person  is  the  revelation  of  the  Father. 


THE  AUTHENTICITY 


The  Four  Gospels 


BY 

\/ 

HENRY  WAGE,  D.D., 


PREBENDARY  OF  ST.  PAUL’S,  PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL 
HISTORY  IN  king’s  COLLEGE,  LONDON. 


ARGUMENT  OF  THE  TRACT. 


The  evidence  furnished  by  the  opening  passage  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  the  authorship  of  the  third 
Gospel,  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Acts  to  the  person¬ 
ality  of  the  author,  and  the  various  circumstances  which 
identify  him  as  St.  Luke  are  pointed  out.  The  m^edical 
language  which  permeates  both  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  shown  to  confirm  this  conclu¬ 
sion-.  The  admissions  of  M.  Renan  with  reference  to 
St.  Luke’s  authorship  of  the  books  are  adduced,  and 
the  value  of  them  as  embodying  the  conclusions  of  a 
hostile  witness  is  indicated.  St.  Luke  is  shown  to  have 
had  ample  opportunities  of  instituting  inquiries  into  the 
truth  of  the  facts  which  he  records,  and  a  comparison 
between  him  and  Tacitus  as  historians  in  this  respect  ts 
instituted.  The  establishment  of  the  authenticity  of 
St.  Luke’s  writings  is  shown  to  obviate  practically  the 
objections  to  the  other  three  Gospels.  Those  Gospels 
are  proved,  however,  to  rest  on  sufficient  evidence. 
The  value  of  M.  Renan’s  conclusions  as  invalidating  the 
force  of  the  objections  of  skeptical  criticism  is  pointed 
out,  and  the  admissions  of  distinguished  negative  critics 
are  quoted  with  reference  to  their  fundamental  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  namely,  the  fact 
that  the  writers  record  supernatural  events. 


THE  AUTHENTICITY 


OF 

THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 


This  is  a  question  which,  during  the  present 
century,  has  been  discussed  with  the  most  intense 
eagerness.  Perhaps  there  is  no  other  on  which 
such  an  amount  of  critical  labor  has  been  be¬ 
stowed,  or  which  in  its  various  aspects  has  occa¬ 
sioned  so  much  excitement.  The  controversy 
began  at  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century;  it  was 
brought  to  a  crisis,  which  aroused  anxiety  through¬ 
out  Europe,  by  the  publication  in  the  year  1835 
of  Strauss’  “Eife  of  Jesus.”  His  criticism  was 
succeeded  by  that  of  the  Tubingen  school,  found¬ 
ed  by  Baur.  The  challenges  thus  offered  to  the 
faith  of  the  Church  were  met  by  numerous  and 
able  theologians  both  in  Germany  and  in  this 
country;  and  every  point  in  the  argument  has 
been  contested  with  the  utmost  keenness.  The 

prolonged  and  vehement  character  of  this  contest 

8 


1 14  authenticity  oe  the  four  gospels.  . 

is  certainly  not  disproportioned  to  its  importance. 
Nothing  can  be  of  more  consequence  to  Chris¬ 
tians  than  to  know  whether  they  have  good  rea¬ 
son  for  their  belief  that  in  the  four  Gospels  they 
possess  four  faithful  records  of  the  life,  the  teach¬ 
ing,  the  death,  and  the  resurrection  of  their  Lord 
and  Master.  We  are  by  no  means,  indeed,  en¬ 
tirely  dependent  on  those  records  for  the  grounds 
of  our  faith,  since  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  even 
if  they  stood  alone,  would  afford  strong  testimony 
to  the  main  facts  respecting  our  Lord  which  are 
asserted  in  the  Christian  Creed.  But  the  Gospels 
alone  afford  us  full  information  respecting  our 
Lord’s  character  and  work;  and  they  must  ever 
be  regarded  as  the  most  precious  and  important 
of  testimonies  to  His  claims. 

It  is  this,  indeed,  which  has  led  the  skeptics 
and  unbelievers  of  this  century  to  direct  such 
persistent  and  fierce  attacks  upon  the  Gospels.  It 
has  been  felt  that  if  they  are  trustworthy  records 
of  what  our  Lord  said  and  did,  the  chief  positions 
for  which  skeptics  have  contended  are  at  once 
overthrown.  Christ  himself  bears  witness  in  those 
Gospels  to  his  own  claims,  to  his  supernatural 
powers,  to  all  that  Christians  believe  respecting 
him.  In  fact,  all  cardinal  questions  of  religion 
are  practically  answered  if  the  Gospels  can  be 
trusted.  Our  Lord  there  bears  overwhelming  tes- 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPELS.  1 15 

timony  to  the  existence  and  character  of  God,  to 
the  fact  that  we  are  now  under  God’s  govern¬ 
ment,  and  shall  hereafter  be  judged  by  him,  and 
to  the  truth  that  he  himself  can  alone  save  us 
from  our  sins  and  their  consequences.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  the  simple  facts  of  the  Gospel  history  were 
from  the  earliest  moment  the  sum  and  substance 
of  the  apostles’  preaching.  In  the  tenth  chapter 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  have  a  record  of 
St.  Peter’s  first  address  to  a  Gentile  audience,  and 
it  is  like  a  brief  summary  of  one  of  our  Gospels. 
He  tells  Cornelius  “how  God  anointed  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power; 
who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that 
were  oppressed  of  the  devil ;  for  God  w^as  with 
him  .  .  .  whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree; 
him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed  him 
openly ;  .  .  .  and  he  commanded  us  to  preach  unto 
the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he  which  was 
ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and 
dead.  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  wkness,  that 
through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
shall  receive  remission  of  sins.”  Such  has  ever 
been  in  substance  the  message  of  the  gospel.  The 
chief  question  which  has  exercised  the  minds  of 
men  in  our  own  time  is  whether  the  four  records 
we  possess  of  that  gospel  can  be  relied  upon. 

Now  if  we  wish  to  know  whether  any  narra- 


Il6  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPELS. 

tive  or  statement  wliicli  we  cannot  ourselves  ver¬ 
ify  is  true,  the  first  question  to  be  asked  is,  On 
whose  authority  does  it  rest  ?  Is  it  reported  to  us 
by  persons  who  had  the  means  of  knowing  the 
facts,  and  whose  accounts  can  be  trusted?  If 
such  accounts  were  written  by  contemporaries 
who  either  themselves  witnessed  the  events  nar¬ 
rated,  or  who  were  intimately  associated  with  such 
eye-witnesses,  we  have  the  highest  kind  of  evi¬ 
dence  which  in  historical  matters  is  possible.  It 
will  be  necessary,  of  course,  to  inquire  further 
into  the  honesty  and  good  judgment  of  such  wri¬ 
ters;  but  the  first  and  most  important  inquiry 
must  be  whether  their  evidence  is  that  of  contem¬ 
poraries.  This  accordingly  is  the  point  which  has 
been  chiefly  challenged  by  writers  who  wish  to 
discredit  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels;  and 
it  is  the  main  question  to  which  we  shall  address 
ourselves.  By  whom  were  the  Gospels  written, 
and  when?  If  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  they  were  written  by  apostles  or  intimate 
friends  of  apostles,  the  main  objections  which 
have  been  raised  to  their  credibility  within  this 
century  will  at  once  fall  to  the  ground. 

Now,  notwithstanding  the  elaborate  character 
of  the  controversies  which  have  been  raised  re¬ 
specting  this  question,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
case  can  after  all  be  very  simply  stated.  It  might 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  II7 

be  supposed,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  prob¬ 
lem  is  generally  discussed  by  opponents  of  the 
Christian  faith,  that  some  elaborate  and  far¬ 
fetched  argument  is  necessary  in  order  to  vindi¬ 
cate  the  received  belief  respecting  the  Gospels. 
There  could  not  be  a  greater  misapprehension. 
It  is  the  case  of  our  opponents  that  is  marked  by 
these  characteristics;  our  own  is  perfectly  straight¬ 
forward  and  simple.  The  four  Gospels  bear  upon 
their  title-pages,  as  we  should  now  say,  the  state¬ 
ment  that  they  were  written  by  St.  Matthew,  St. 
Mark,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John.  That  is  the  way 
in  which,  from  the  earliest  date,  the  words,  ‘  ‘  ac¬ 
cording  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,”  were 
understood.  No  suspicion  can  be  shown  to  have 
been  entertained  by  any  writer  of  the  first  few 
centuries  that  these  inscriptions  had  any  other 
meaning,  or  that  the  meaning  thus  implied  was' 
untrue.  Now,  if  in  our  own  day  a  book  appears 
with  a  name  purporting  to  be  that  of  the  author 
on  the  title-page,  and  not  a  single  doubt  is  ex¬ 
pressed  during  his  own  lifetime  or  the  lifetime  of 
any  of  his  friends  as  to  the  fact  of  his  having 
written  it,  who  would  doubt  that  he  had  done 
so? 

It  is  not  merely  with  respect  to  modern  books 
that  this  principle  is  acted  upon ;  it  is  equally 
adopted  with  respect  to  ancient  books.  The 


Il8  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPEES. 

works  of  Sophocles  or  Thucydides  bear  their 
names;  and  as  the  authorship  was  never  doubted 
in  ancient  times  we  accept  it  still,  unless  positive 
external  or  internal  objections  to  the  contrary  can 
be  adduced.  But  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  those 
who  urge  such  objections.  If  certain  books  have 
borne  the  names  of  certain  authors  unquestioned 
for  centuries,  we  have  a  right  to  demand  very  co¬ 
gent  evidence  from  those  who  would  have  us  re¬ 
ject  this  constant  consent.  In  short,  from  the 
first  moment  they  are  heard  of,  these  four  books 
were  accepted  as  the  work  of  the  writers  whose 
names  they  bear.  The  question  is  not,  Why 
should  we  believe  they  were  written  by  those  per¬ 
sons  ?  but.  Why  should  we  not  believe  it  ? 

But  this  is  only  a  preliminary  step.  The  most 
natural  and  the  fairest  course  is  to  inquire,  in  the 
first  place,  what  the  Gospels  say  for  themselves. 
It  is  reasonable  to  allow  a  witness  to  speak  for 
himself  before  we  listen  to  any  evidence  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  him.  Now  it  so  happens  that,  although 
the  authors  of  the  four  Gospels  are  singularly  reti¬ 
cent  respecting  themselves,  two,  at  least,  of  them 
have  incidentally  afforded  us  indications  which, 
in  the  opinion  of  all  critics,  are  extremely  signifi¬ 
cant  of  their  individuality  and  of  their  positions. 
This  is  peculiarly  the  case  in  respect  to  the  Gos¬ 
pel  of  St.  Ivuke;  and  it  will  be  found  the  simplest 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEUS.  HQ 

introduction  to  this  part  of  our  subject,  if  we  be¬ 
gin  by  considering  the  books  which  are  attributed 
to  him.  For  in  this  case  we  start  with  the  ad- 
vantao^e  that  we  have  two  books  on  which  to  base 
our  judgment,  instead  of  one.  The  book  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  opens  by  a  reference  to  a  for¬ 
mer  book  by  the  same  author,  and  that  reference, 
combined  with  internal  evidence,  leaves  no  prac¬ 
tical  doubt  that  this  book  was  the  Gospel  accord¬ 
ing  to  St.  Fuke.  “The  former  treatise  have  I 
made,  O  Theophilus,”  says  the  writer,  “of  all 
that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  teach,  until  the 
day  in  which  he  was  taken  up.”  But  the  Gospel 
according  to  St.  Fuke  treats  of  the  subject  thus 
defined,  and  it  is  similarly  addressed  to  Theophi¬ 
lus.  It  is  moreover  generally  recognised,  even  by 
some  of  the  chief  rationalistic  critics  to  whom  ref¬ 
erence  will  subsequently  be  made,  that  the  two 
treatises  are  marked  by  a  singular  unity  of  style, 
idiom,  and  thought,  that  one  mind  conceived  the 
two  books  and  one  hand  wrote  them.  If  we  can 
determine  who  was  the  author  of  one  of  them,  we 
know  the  author  of  the  other. 

Now,  the  authorship  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos¬ 
tles  is  revealed  by  one  of  those  pieces  of  incident¬ 
al  evidence  which,  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  are 
sometimes  more  convincing  than  direct  state¬ 
ments.  In  the  1 6th  chapter  the  writer  is  descri- 


120  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

bing  one  of  tlie  journeys  of  St.  Paul,  and  at  first 
he  speaks  of  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  in  the 
third  person.  Thus,  in  the  6th  verse,  he  says, 
“Now  when  they  had  gone  throughout  Phrygia 
and  the  region  of  Galatia  .  .  .  after  they  were 
come  to  Mysia,  they  assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia; 
but  the  Spirit  suffered  them  not.”  A  vision  ap¬ 
peared  to  Paul  in  the  night,  bidding  him  go  over 
to  Macedonia ;  and  here  the  writer  suddenly 
changes  his  expression,  and  begins  to  speak  in 
the  first  person.  In  the  loth  verse  he  proceeds: 
“And  after  he  had  seen  the  vision,  immediately 
we  endeavored  to  go  into  Macedonia.  ”  It  is  nat¬ 
ural  to  conclude  that  at  this  point  the  writer 
joined  St.  Paul’s  company.  He  proceeds  with 
him  to  Philippi;  but  appears  to  have  remained 
there  when  St.  Paul  passed  on  to  Amphipolis,  as 
he  resumes  the  third  person  at  the  commencement 
of  chapter  17.  But  in  the  5th  verse  of  chapter  20, 
where  it  is  described  how  St.  Paul  again  passed 
through  Philippi  when  going  through  Macedonia 
on  his  final  journey  to  Jerusalem,  the  writer  be¬ 
gins  again  to  speak  of  what  “we”  did.  From 
that  time  he  speaks  as  though  he  were  constantly 
in  St.  Paul’s  company.  He  arrived  at  Jerusalem 
with  him,  and  was  received  with  him  by  St. 
James  (21  :i7,  18);  and  when  St.  Paul’s  imprison¬ 
ment  at  Csesarea  was  terminated  by  his  appeal  to 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  I2I 

Caesar,  the  writer  accompanies  him  on  his  voyage, 
suffered  shipwreck  with  him,  and  arrived  with 
him  at  Rome  (28  : 16). 

Now,  from  some  references  in  St.  Paul’s  Epis¬ 
tles,  there  remains  no  practical  doubt  who  was  the 
person  thus  associated  with  St.  Paul.  In  Col. 
4:14,  St.  Paul  sends  a  salutation  from  “Euke, 
the  beloved  physician;”  in  2  Tim.  4:11,  he  says, 
“  Only  Euke  is  with  me;”  and  at  the  end  of  the 
letter  to  Philemon,  the  salutation  of  Euke  is  add¬ 
ed,  among  others,  to  that  of  St.  Paul.  St.  Euke, 
therefore,  was  an  intimate  companion  of  the  apos¬ 
tle;  and  there  is  no  other  known  companion  to 
whom  the  circumstances  mentioned  in  the  Acts 
are  appropriate.  Thus  the  internal  evidence 
which  is  furnished  by  the  third  Gospel,  by  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  by  St.  Paul’s  Epistles, 
is  in  complete  harmony  with  the  tradition  that 
St.  Euke  was  the  author  of  both  the  Gospel  and 
the  Acts.  A  further  piece  of  very  striking  inter¬ 
nal  evidence  has  been  added  within  the  last  year. 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  Euke  as  a  physician,  and  it 
had  already  been  observed  that  the  descriptions  of 
our  Eord’s  miracles  of  healing,  in  the  third  Gos¬ 
pel,  bear  traces  of  the  hand  and  eye  of  a  medical 
observer.  But  an  Irish  scholar,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ho¬ 
bart,  published  last  year  a  full  investigation  of 
what  he  describes  as  “The  Medical  Eanguage  of 


122  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEUS. 

St.  Ivuke,”*  and  He  points  out  the  following  facts: 
that  we  find  running  througHout  the  third  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  a  number  of  words 
which  were  either  distinctly  medical  terms,  or 
commonly  employed  in  medical  language ;  that 
we  find  a  constant  use  of  the  same  compounds  of 
simple  words  which  the  medical  writers  employ, 
and  that  these  are  for  the  most  part  peculiar  to 
this  author,  or  that  he  makes  more  frequent  use 
of  them  than  the  other  New  Testament  writers; 
that  he  alone  uses  the  special  medical  terms  for 
the  distribution  of  nourishment,  blood,  nerves, 
etc.,  through  the  body,  as  well  as  the  medical 
terms  for  “stimulation,”  and  to  denote  an  inter¬ 
mittent  or  a  failing  pulse ;  that  there  are  some 
words  confined  to  St.  Tuke  and  the  medical  au¬ 
thors  in  the  sense  which  they  bear  in  his  writings; 
and  that  the  medical  style  of  St.  I^uke  accounts 
for  the  very  frequent  and  peculiar  use  made  by 
him  of  some  words  which  were  habitually  em¬ 
ployed,  and  were  indeed  almost  indispensable,  in 
the  vocabulary  of  a  physician.  This  peculiar 
phraseology,  moreover,  permeates  the  entire  ex¬ 
tent  of  the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  and  thus  adds  a  strong  evidence  of  the  integ¬ 
rity  of  those  writings. 

-  “The  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,”  by  the  Rev.  W.  K. 
Hobart,  LL.  D.  London,  1882. 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  123 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  ancient  tradition  that 
St.  Luke,  the  companion  of  St.  Paul,  wrote  our 
third  Gospel  corroborated  by  various  convergent 
evidences  of  a  very  striking  character.  Now  it  is 
only  reasonable  to  ask  that  before  evidence  of  this 
consistent  nature  is  rejected,  very  clear  objections 
to  its  validity  should  be  established.  No  doubt 
the  evidence  is  in  the  main  circumstantial  and 
not  demonstrative,  and  it  is  conceivable  therefore 
that  it  might  be  refuted  by  counter  evidence,  or  by 
strong  objections  based  on  its  internal  inconsisten¬ 
cy.  But  it  is  important  to  observe  that  the  burden 
of  disproof  is  on  the  side  of  the  objector;  and  he 
ought  to  be  able  to  make  out  at  least  as  clear  a 
case  on  the  other  side  before  we  can  be  asked  to 
abandon  conclusions  which  have  such  a  weight  of 
traditional  and  circumstantial  evidence  in  their 
favor.  This  being  premised,  we  proceed  to  in¬ 
quire  to  what  the  objections  amount. 

It  fortunately  happens  that  this  inquiry  may 
be  very  briefly  satisfied.  It  would  be  equally  te¬ 
dious  and  unsatisfactory  to  pursue  in  detail  the 
innumerable  doubts  which  critics  have  urged  on 
this  subject.  But  if  we  are  able  to  adduce  a  prac¬ 
tically  impartial  estimate  of  the  value  of  all  these 
objections — an  estimate  not  made  by  a  believing 
theologian,  but  by  a  skeptical  critic  who  entirely 
rejects  the  main  teaching  of  the  Gospels  as  Chris- 


124  authenticity  of  the  four  gospels. 

tians  believe  it — in  short,  by  one  who  is  in  every 
sense  of  the  word  an  outside  observer,  we  may  feel 
satisfied  that  we  are  in  possession  of  a  fair  meas¬ 
ure  of  the  force  of  the  objections.  Such  an  inde¬ 
pendent  witness  we  can  call  upon  in  the  person  of 
M.  Renan.  The  general  character  of  his  views 
respecting  our  Lord  is  well  known.  He  entirely 
disbelieves  in  any  miraculous  occurrences,  and 
assumes  that  whatever  reports  we  have  of  them, 
in  any  historic  document  whatever,  must  by  some 
means  or  other  be  explained  away.  He  is,  there¬ 
fore,  for  our  purposes,  of  even  more  value  than  a 
strictly  impartial  witness.  He  is  a  hostile  witness; 
he  is  prejudiced  beforehand  against  the  literal 
trustworthiness  of  a  document  which  contains  ac¬ 
counts  of  miracles,  and  it  would  be  an  assistance 
to  his  argument  if  it  could  be  shown  that  such  a 
document  was  not  the  work  of  a  person  who  had 
had  access  to  contemporary  evidence. 

What,  then,  is  the  testimony  of  M.  Renan? 
It  will  be  found  in  the  Preface  to  his  “  Vie  de  Je¬ 
sus,”  15th  edition,  p.  48.  The  passage  substan¬ 
tially  corresponds  to  that  portion  of  our  argument 
which  has  hitherto  occupied  our  attention.  He 
says: 

“It  is  known  that  each  of  the  four  Gospels 
bears  at  its  head  the  name  of  a  personage  known 
either  in  the  apostolic  history  or  in  the  evangeli- 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPELS.  125 

cal  history  itself.  It  is  clear  that  if  these  titles 
are  correct,  these  Gospels,  without  ceasing  to  be 
partly  legendary,  assume  a  high  value,  since  they 
enable  us  to  go  back  to  the  half-century  which 
followed  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  even,  in  two  cases, 
to  eye-witnesses  of  his  actions.  ’  ’ 

The  reader  will  here  notice  M.  Renan’s  posi¬ 
tion.  He  considers  that  parts  of  the  Gospels  must 
under  any  circumstances  be  regarded  as  legenda¬ 
ry,  and  therefore,  as  we  have  observed,  he  cannot 
be  prejudiced  against  criticism  which  would  as¬ 
sign  them  to  authors  of  a  late  date.  But  he  pro¬ 
ceeds: 

“As  to  lyuke,  doubt  is  scarcely  possible.  The 
Gospel  of  St.  Luke  is  a  regular  composition, 
founded  upon  earlier  documents.  It  is  the  work 
of  an  author  who  chooses,  curtails,  combines. 
The  author  of  this  Gospel  is  certainly  the  same 
as  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Now 
the  author  of  the  Acts  seems  to  be  a  companion 
of  St.  Paul — a  character  which  accords  completely 
with  St.  Luke.  I  know  that  more  than  one  ob¬ 
jection  maybe  opposed  to  this  reasoning;  but  one 
thing  at  all  events  is  beyond  doubt,  namely,  that 
the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  is 
a  man  who  belonged  to  the  second  apostolic  gen¬ 
eration;  and  this  suffices  for  our  purpose.  The 
date  of  this  Gospel,  moreover,  may  be  determined 


126  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPELS. 

with  sufficient  precision  by  considerations  drawn 
from  the  book  itself.  The  twenty-first  chapter  of 
St.  Luke,  which  is  inseparable  from  the  rest  of 
the  work,  was  certainly  written  after  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem,  but  not  long  after.  We  are  therefore 
here  on  solid  ground,  for  we  are  dealing  with  a 
work  proceeding  entirely  from  the  same  hand  and 
possessing  the  most  complete  unity.  ’  ’ 

Now  M.  Renan’s  opinions  as  to  the  exact  date 
of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel,  whether  a  few  years  before 
or  a  few  years  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  in 
A.  D.  70,  and  his  prejudice  respecting  the  legen¬ 
dary  character  of  some  of  the  narratives  in  the 
Gospel,  are  clearly  separable  from  his  critical 
judgment  as  to  the  person  by  whom  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  third  Gospel  were  written. 
If  he  allows  that  those  two  books  were  written  by 
a  companion  of  St.  Paul,  who,  beyond  any  rea¬ 
sonable  doubt,  was  St.  Luke,  we  may  form  our 
own  opinions  as  to  the  conclusions  to  be  deduced 
from  this  admission.  But  it  may  be  important  to 
observe  that  the  admission  has  been  supported  by 
M.  Renan’s  further  iuvestigations,  as  expressed 
in  his  subsequent  volume  on  “The  Apostles.” 
In  the  Preface  to  that  volume  he  discusses  fully 
the  nature  aud  value  of  the  narrative  contained 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  he  pronounces 
the  following  decided  opinions  as  to  the  author- 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPEES.  127 

ship  of  that  book  and  its  connection  with  the  Gos¬ 
pel  of  St.  Luke  (p.  10,  s^.): 

“One  point  which  is  beyond  question  is  that 
the  Acts  are  by  the  same  author  as  the  third  Gos¬ 
pel,  and  are  a  continuation  of  that  Gospel.  One 
need  not  stop  to  prove  this  proposition,  which  has 
never  been  seriously  contested.  The  prefaces  at 
the  commencement  of  each  work,  the  dedication 
of  each  to  Theophilus,  the  perfect  resemblance  of 
style  and  of  ideas,  furnish  on  this  point  abundant 
demonstrations. 

“A  second  proposition,  which  has  not  the  same 
certainty,  but  which  may,  however,  be  regarded 
as  extremely  probable,  is  that  the  author  of  the 
Acts  is  a  disciple  of  Paul,  who  accompanied  him 
for  a  considerable  part  of  his  travels.  ’  ’ 

At  a  first  glance,  M.  Renan  observes,  this  prop¬ 
osition  appears  indubitable  from  the  fact  that  the 
author,  on  so  many  occasions,  uses  the  pronoun 
“we,”  indicating  that  on  those  occasions  he  was 
one  of  the  apostolic  band  by  whom  St.  Paul  was 
accompanied.  “One  may  even  be  astonished 
that  a  proposition  apparently  so  evident  should 
have  found  persons  to  contest  it.”  He  notices, 
however,  the  difficulties  which  have  been  raised 
on  the  point,  and  then  proceeds  as  follows  (p.  14): 

“  Must  we  be  checked  by  these  objections?  I 
think  not;  and  I  persist  in  believing  that  the  per- 


128  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 

son  who  finally  prepared  the  Acts  is  really  the  dis¬ 
ciple  of  Paul,  who  says  ‘  we  ’  in  the  last  chapters. 
All  difficulties,  however  insoluble  they  may  ap¬ 
pear,  ought  to  be,  if  not  dismissed,  at  least  held 
in  suspense,  by  an  argument  so  decisive  as  that 
which  results  from  the  use  of  this  word  ‘  we.’  ” 

He  then  observes  that  MSS.  and  tradition 
combine  in  assigning  the  third  Gospel  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  Ivuke,  and  that  it  is  scarcely  conceivable 
that  a  name  in  other  respects  obscure  should  have 
been  attributed  to  so  important  a  work  for  any 
other  reason  than  that  it  was  the  name  of  the  real 
author.  Luke,  he  says,  had  no  place  in  tradition, 
in  legend,  or  in  history  when  these  two  treatises 
were  ascribed  to  him.  M.  Renan  concludes  in 
the  following  words:  “We  think,  therefore,  that 
the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts 
is  in  all  reality  Luke,  the  disciple  of  Paul.” 

Now  let  the  import  of  these  expressions  of 
opinion  be  duly  weighed.  Of  course  M.  Renan’s 
judgments  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  affording  in 
themselves  any  adequate  basis  for  our  acceptance 
of  the  authenticity  of  the  chief  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
four  Gospels  bear  on  their  face  certain  positive 
claims,  on  the  faith  of  which  they  have  been  ac¬ 
cepted  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  and  they  do  not 
appeal,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  authority  of 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  1 29 

any  modern  critic.  But  though  M.  Renan  would 
be  a  very  unsatisfactory  witness  to  rely  upon  for 
the  purpose  of  positive  testimony  to  the  Gospels, 
it  will  be  acknowledged  that  his  estimates  of 
the  value  of  modern  critical  objections  to  those 
sacred  books  have  all  the  weight  of  the  admissions 
of  a  hostile  witness.  No  one  doubts  his  perfect 
familiarity  with  the  whole  range  of  the  criticism 
represented  by  such  names  as  Strauss  and  Baur, 
and  no  one  questions  his  disposition  to  give  full 
weight  to  every  objection  which  that  criticism 
can  urge.  Even  without  assuming  that  he  is 
prejudiced  on  either  one  side  or  the  other,  it  will 
be  admitted  on  all  hands  that  he  is  more  favora¬ 
bly  disposed  than  otherwise  to  such  criticism  as 
we  have  to  meet.  When,  therefore,  with  this 
full  knowledge  of  the  literature  of  the  subject, 
such  a  writer  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
criticism  in  question  has  entirely  failed  to  make 
good  its  case  on  a  point  like  that  of  the  au¬ 
thorship  of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel,  we  are  at  least 
justified  in  concluding  that  critical  objections  do 
not  possess  the  weight  which  unbelievers  or  skep¬ 
tics  are  wont  to  assign  to  them.  M.  Renan,  in  a 
word,  is  no  adequate  witness  to  the  Gospels;  but 
he  is  a  very  significant  witness  as  to  the  value  of 
modern  critical  objections  to  them. 

To  illustrate  our  meaning,  let  us  take  a  defi- 

y 


130  AUTH£:nTICITY  of  the  four  gospels. 

nite  example.  Less  than  four  years  ago  the  au¬ 
thor  of  the  work  entitled  “Supernatural  Reli¬ 
gion  ’  ’  published  what  he  described  as  his  ‘  ‘  com¬ 
plete  edition,”  which  he  had  carefully  revised 
throughout.  This  work  was  received  with  great 
acclamation  by  the  chief  literary  representatives 
of  skeptical  opinions,  and  its  statements  were 
widely  quoted  as  embodying  the  final  results  of 
impartial  criticism.  In  its  first  edition  the  au¬ 
thor  had  maintained  that  there  was  no  evidence 
of  our  present  third  Gospel  being  in  existence 
before  the  time  when  Marcion  the  heretic,  who 
flourished  about  the  year  140,  put  forth  a  Gospel  to 
suit  his  peculiar  views.  The  author  of  “Super¬ 
natural  Religion”  maintained  through  several 
editions  that  Marcion’s  Gospel  was  the  original, 
and  that  our  third  Gospel  was  expanded  from  it. 
This  view,  however,  he  has  been  compelled  to 
abandon  by  the  researches  of  Dr.  Sanday;  and 
he  now  admits  “that  our  third  Synoptic  existed 
in  Marcion’s  time;”  so  that  we  find  evidence  of 
its  existence  “about  the  year  140,  and  it  may  of 
course  be  inferred  that  it  must  have  been  com¬ 
posed  at  least  some  time  before  that  date.” 

This  is  not  the  only  point,  as  we  shall  see,  on 
which  this  writer  had  to  abandon  positions  which 
he  had  asserted  with  the  utmost  assurance.  But 
although  thus  compelled  to  surrender  an  impor- 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  13I 

taut  point  in  liis  argument,  he  still  asserts  (voL 
III.  p.  39)  that  “there  is  no  evidence  whatever 
that  this  Luke  had  been  a  travelling  companion 
of  Paul,  or  that  he  ever  wrote  a  line  concerning 
him  or  had  composed  a  Gospel.”  We  are  further 
told.(p.  50)  that  “a  very  large  mass  of  the  ablest 
critics  have  concluded  that  the  ‘  wE  ’  sections 
were  not  composed  by  the  author  of  the  rest  of 
the  Acts  ....  and  that  the  general  writer  of  the 
work,  and  consequently  of  the  third  Gospel,  was 
not  Luke  at  all.” 

Still  more  positively  it  is  laid  down  that  “a 
careful  study  of  the  contents  of  the  Acts  cannot, 
we  think,  leave  any  doubt  that  the  work  could 
not  have  been  written  by  any  companion  or  inti¬ 
mate  friend  of  the  apostle  Paul.” 

Such  language  would  naturally  lead  the  read¬ 
er  to  suppose  that  there  was  a  substantial  agree¬ 
ment  of  independent  critics  in  favor  of  these  con¬ 
clusions,  and  that  none  but  uncritical  supporters 
of  “  traditional  ”  views  adhered  to  the  old  beliefs. 
But  we  have  called  a  witness  whose  admissions 
on  this  point  have  an  unimpeachable  value,  to 
prove  that  criticism  has  established  no  such  nega¬ 
tive  conclusions.  In  the  face  of  it  all,  M.  Renan 
“persists  in  believing”  that  the  Acts  were  writ¬ 
ten,  in  the  form  we  now  possess  them,  by  a  com¬ 
panion  of  St.  Paul,  and  that  this  companion  was 


132  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEUS. 

no  other  than  St.  I^uke,  who  was  also  the  writer 
of  the  third  Gospel.  We  are  justified,  in  view  of 
this  testimony,  in  concluding  that  the  critical 
objections  are  not  only  destitute  of  any  such  posi¬ 
tive,  scientific,  and  convincing  character  as  is 
sometimes  claimed  for  them,  but  that  such  weight 
as  they  possess  is  entirely  counterbalanced  by 
other  critical  considerations.  In  other  words, 
there  is  nothing  left  in  respect  to  the  third  Gospel 
to  weigh  against  the  positive  testimony  of  all  an¬ 
cient  authorities,  and  that  testimony  therefore  has 
every  claim  to  be  accepted. 

We  have  thus  arrived  at  this  conclusion — that 
the  third  Gospel  was  really  written,  in  the  form 
in  whieh  we  now  possess  it,  by  St.  Luke,  the 
companion  of  St.  Paul  in  several  of  his  journeys, 
and  particularly  on  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem  and 
in  his  subsequent  journey  to  Rome.  Now  this 
one  point  being  established,  it  will  be  found  that 
all  serious  objections  to  the  belief  of  the  Church 
respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  other  Gospels 
are  practically  obviated.  For  it  follows  that  the 
claim  put  forward  in  the  preface  to  the  third 
Gospel  is  completely  justified.  St.  Luke  was  not 
indeed  himself  an  eye-witness  of  our  Lord’s  life 
on  earth;  but  he  claims  to  have  had  “perfect 
understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  first,” 
or,  as  the  revisers  render  the  phrase,  to  have 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  133 

“traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from 
the  very  first.”  St.  Paul,  in  his  intercourse  with 
the  apostles,  must  have  been  fully  informed  of 
the  teaching  and  the  acts  of  our  Pord  during  his 
ministry,  and  through  St.  Paul,  St.  I^uke  must 
have  been  similarly  cognizant  of  them.  But  in 
his  visit  with  St.  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  St.  Buke 
himself  must  have  been  in  communication  with 
other  apostles,  as  well  as  with  many  other  disci¬ 
ples  of  our  kord  who  had  “  companied  with  them 
all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out 
among  them.  ’  ’  That  visit  to  Jerusalem  was  about 
twenty-five  years  after  the  crucifixion,  when 
those  who  had  been  the  actual  contemporaries  of 
our  Lord  were  from  fifty  to  sixty  years  of  age,  in 
full  possession  of  their  faculties,  with  their  mem¬ 
ory  still  clear  and  their  judgment  vigorous.  St. 
Luke  must  have  had  abundant  opportunities  in 
such  company  of  following  up,  as  he  says  he  did, 
everything  from  the  very  first.  “Many,”  he 
says,  had  already  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in 
order  a  narrative  of  the  same  facts  “even  as  they 
delivered  them  unto  us  whieh  from  the  be^in- 

o 

ning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word.”  These  written  narratives  he  was  in  a 
position  to  test,  to  complete,  and  to  arrange  in 
better  order,  by  personal  inquiry  of  the  same  or 
other' “  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word.” 


134  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEUS. 

If,  therefore,  he  was  a  faithful  historian,  that 
which  he  has  recorded  for  us  is  the  sifted  and 
well-arranged  testimony  of  eye-witnesses:  it  is 
the  result  of  a  mass  of  evidence  at  first  hand. 

Now  we  may  well  ask  whether  any  better 
ground  for  our  belief  than  this  could  well  have 
been  afforded  us.  All  the  evidence  we  can  ob¬ 
tain,  with  respect  to  the  great  mass  of  historical 
events,  is  the  account  of  them  by  some  historian 
who  lived  at  or  near  the  time  of  their  occurrence, 
and  who  had  reports  of  them  either  at  first  or  sec¬ 
ond  hand.  This,  for  instance,  is  the  evidence  on 
which  we  believe  the  annals  of  Tacitus.  He  was 
born  somewhat  before  the  year  6o  A.  D. ,  and  nar¬ 
rates  the  history  of  the  years  from  A.  D.  14-68, 
of  which  the  first  forty  were  before  he  was  born. 
He  was  not,  therefore,  a  contemporary  of  the 
greater  part  of  the  events  he  narrates,  while  St. 
Ivuke  was.  But  like  St.  Luke,  he  had  opportu¬ 
nities  for  ascertaining  the  facts  from  eye-witness¬ 
es,  and  as  his  writings  produce  the  impression 
that  he  was  a  truthful  person,  of  sound  judgment, 
we  accept  his  testimony. 

But  it  must  be  observed  that  for  the  greater 
part  of  the  narratives  in  Tacitus  we  have  no  such 
guarantee  as  is  afforded  us  by  the  facts  above  es¬ 
tablished  respecting  St.  Luke.  What  is  the  ut¬ 
most  guarantee  of  truth  that  we  could  expect 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  135 

from  any  historian?  Surely  that,  being  a  con¬ 
temporary  of  the  events  he  narrates,  he  should 
visit  the  country  and  the  very  spots  in  which  they 
are  alleged  to  have  occurred,  that  he  should  be 
acquainted  with  reports  of  them  already  commit¬ 
ted  to  writing,  that  he  should  be  well  acquainted 
with  many  persons  who  actually  witnessed  them, 
that  he  should  possess  the  full  confidence  of  such 
persons,  and  that  he  should  take  pains  to  make  a 
thorough  inquiry  into  the  facts.  Very  few  histo¬ 
rians  indeed  have  had  the  opportunity  of  fulfilling 
these  requirements.  Tacitus,  for  instance,  had  no 
such  opportiinities  for  a  great  part  of  the  events 
he  narrates.  But  St.  Luke  had  those  opportuni¬ 
ties  in  the  fullest  degree,  and  he  assures  us  sim¬ 
ply  and  straightforwardly  in  the  preface  to  his 
Gospel  that  he  made  a  diligent  use  of  them.  The 
result  of  such  considerations  is  that  in  St.  Luke’s 
Gospel  we  possess  an  account  of  our  Lord’s  birth, 
ministry,  passion,  and  resurrection  which  embod¬ 
ies  the  harmonious  evidence  of  eye-witnesses,  and 
which  preserves  for  us  the  best  contemporary  evi¬ 
dence  which  was  attainable. 

But  it  will  readily  be  seen  that  if  the  authen¬ 
ticity  and  credibility  of  one  Gospel  is  thus  clearly 
established,  the  inquiry  which  remains  respecting 
the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the  other  three 
is  immensely  simplified.  With  respect  at  least  to 


136  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

the  first  two  Gospels  there  would  seem  to  remain 
no  sufficient  reason  why  any  skeptical  critic  should 
trouble  himself  to  dispute  their  authenticity.  For 
it  is  unquestionable  that  they  tell  substantially  the 
same  story  as  is  told  in  the  third  Gospel.  There 
are  indeed  some  points  of  detail  on  which  it  has 
been  found  difficult  to  harmonffie  them.  It  is  un¬ 
necessary  for  our  present  argument  to  discuss  these 
minor  difficulties.  They  are  of  importance  in  re¬ 
spect  to  the  relation  of  the  Gospels  to  one  another, 
and  they  have  also  important  bearings  upon  the 
question  of  the  character  of  the  inspiration  which 
Christians  believe  was  vouchsafed  to  the  writers. 
But,  at  the  very  utmost,  they  amount  to  no  more 
than  the  discrepancies  wffiich,  as  w’e  are  reminded 
every  day  by  discussions  respecting  the  biogra¬ 
phies  of  men  recently  deceased,  continually  arise 
between  the  accounts  of  truthful  contemporaries 
and  eye-witnesses.  We  are  not  here  admitting 
that  such  apparent  discrepancies  in  the  Gospels 
are  real.  We  only  say  that,  even  if  they  exist, 
they  are  of  such  a  minor  character  as  not  to  affect 
materially  the  substantial  harmony  of  the  narra¬ 
tives,  or  to  impair  their  general  trustworthiness. 
But  from  this  it  follows  that  if  any  one  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  was  written  by  a  contemporary,  and 
is  a  record  of  contemporary  evidence,  both  the 
others  might  be.  If  criticism  can  adduce  no  suf- 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  1 37 

ficient  reason  why  the  third  Gospel  should  not  be, 
as  it  purports  to  be,  written  by  St.  Luke,  it  can 
hardly  be  w^orth  its  while  to  expend  much  subtle¬ 
ty  in  disputing  the  tradition  that  the  first  Gospel 
w’as  wnitten  by  St.  Matthew  and  the  second  by 
St.  Mark.  St.  Luke’s  Gospel,  we  have  seen,  is  a 
record  of  the  accounts  current  among  apostles  and 
contemporaries  of  our  Lord  respecting  his  minis¬ 
try.  Consequently  it  is  only  to  be  expected  that 
other  records  written  by  members  of  the  same 
company,  at  about  the  same  period,  should  be 
substantially  of  the  same  character.  One  positive 
piece  of  evidence  suffices  to  outweigh  any  number 
of  mere  doubts  and  objections.  In  view  of  what 
has  been  said,  w^e  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  story  told  by  St.  Luke  is  the  story  which  w^as 
harmoniously  told  by  the  contemporaries  of  our 
Lord  in  Palestine.  If  so,  there  is  at  least  no  rea¬ 
son  arising  out  of  the  story  itself  wdiy  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Mark  should  not  have  written  the  two 
Gospels  attributed  to  them. 

But,  of  course,  in  the  interests  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  for  the  purposes  of  Christian  instruc¬ 
tion,  it  is  of  the  highest  interest  and  importance 
to  know  wdiether  the  objections  which  have  been 
raised  against  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels  at¬ 
tributed  to  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  John 
can  be  sustained;  and  with  respect  to  the  former 


138  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 

two  Gospels  this  question  may  be  dealt  with  even 
more  simply  and  briefly  than  in  the  case  of  St. 
Luke.  Here  again  it  is  only  reasonable  to  start 
from  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  earliest  ages  on 
the  subject.  As  is  said  by  HolUmann,*  a  ration¬ 
alistic  critic,  “the  first  cononical  Gospel  was  en¬ 
tirely  and  unanimously  attributed  by  the  ancient 
Church  to  the  apostle  Matthew.”  As  the  same 
critic  observes,  this  is  the  more  remarkable,  since 
there  is  nothing  in  what  is  otherwise  known  of 
Matthew  to  account  for  the  first  Gospel  being  at¬ 
tributed  to  him  (p.  360):  “That  the  early  Church 
must  have  had  some  ground  in  facts  for  referring 
the  first  Gospel  to  this  name  must  seem  the  more 
probable,  since,  with  this  exception,  the  person  of 
INIatthew  is  entirely  in  the  background  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  apostolic  age.” 

In  other  words,  there  was  no  reason  why  it 
should  have  been  believed  that  St.  Matthew 
wTote  the  Gospel  except  that  he  did  write  it;  and 
therefore,  as  has  been  urged  before,  the  tradition 
has,  on  the  face  of  it,  a  claim  to  be  believed  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary.  But,  in 
the  first  place,  there  is  positive  evidence  to  the 
fact  that  St.  Matthew  did  write  a  work  of  the 
general  character  of  our  Gospel.  There  is  one 
valuable  piece  of  early  Christian  testimony  pre- 

-  “  Die  Sj’noplischen  Evangelien,”  p.  359. 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  139 

served  to  ns  respecting  the  anthorship  of  the  first 
two  Gospels.  It  is  contained  in  a  fragment  of  a 
work  by  Papias,  who  was  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  in 
Asia  Minor,  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  centnry, 
and  who  was  a  hearer  of  the  apostle  John.  It  is 
natural  that  we  shonld  have  bnt  little  discnssion 
of  the  anthorship  of  the  New  Testament  writings 
in  early  times,  if  they  were  really  gennine.  Chris¬ 
tians  in  snch  case  wonld  accept  them  withont  hes¬ 
itation;  and  it  wonld  be  only  as  time  went  on,  and 
heresies  arose,  or  the  Chnrch  came  into  conflict 
with  heathen  cnltnre,  that  donbts  on  this  snbject 
wonld  be  raised.  The  evidence  of  Papias  is  there¬ 
fore  particnlarly  welcome,  and  it  has  been  scrntin- 
ized,  by  believers  and  nnbelievers  alike,  with  the 
ntmost  keenness.  With  respect  to  St.  Matthew, 
he  is  qnoted  by  Ensebins  (Hist.  Eccl.  3  : 39)  as 
saying  that  “  Matthew  composed  the  Oracles  in 
the  Hebrew  tongne,  and  each  one  interpreted 
them  as  he  conld.”  There  has  been  much  dis- 
pnte  as  to  the  exact  meaning  of  the  term  “ora¬ 
cles”  here  nsed.  Some  writers  have  endeavored 
to  make  orft  that  it  is  only  applicable  to  sayings 
or  disconrses,  and  that  conseqnently  the  work  by 
St.  Matthew  which  was  known  to  Papias  can 
only  have  been  a  collection  of  onr  Lord’s  sayings, 
and  cannot  have  been  a  narrative  of  his  ministry, 
like  our  present  Gospel.  Even  if  this  restricted 


140  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEUS. 

interpretation  of  tlie  word  could  be  maintained,  it 
would  be  evidently  pressing  the  argument  too  far 
to  assume  that  such  a  collection  excluded  all  nar¬ 
ratives  of  facts ;  but  it  has  been  conclusively 
shown  that  the  word  bears  no  such  narrow  mean- 
ing.  It  is  the  same  word  as  is  used  by  St.  Paul 
when  he  says  (Rom.  3:1,  2)  that  the  Jews  had 
the  keeping  of  the  oracles  of  God,  by  which  he 
evidently  means  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as 
a  whole,  including  the  narrative  books.  At  the 
utmost,  the  fact  that  St.  Matthew  reports  with 
special  prominence  and  fulness  several  of  our 
Lord’s  discourses  would  be  sufficient  to  answer 
the  meaning  of  such  an  expression.  Thus  we 
have  two  positive  facts  from  which  to  start — the 
one,  the  fact  that  our  first  Gospel  was  uniformly 
attributed  to  St.  Matthew  from  the  earliest  times; 
the  other,  the  express  statement  of  a  disciple  of 
St.  John  that  St.  Matthew  wrote  a  work  of  this 
kind.  Whether  St.  Matthew,  besides  writing  the 
original  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  subsequently  transla¬ 
ted  it  himself  into  Greek,  or  whether  our  present 
Gospel  is  another  work  of  the  same  *kind  which 
the  apostle  also  wrote,  are  secondary  points.  From 
these  two  facts  it  is  reasonable  to  accept  our  first 
Gospel  as  St.  Matthew’s  work,  in  the  absence  of 
decisive  critical  objections.  Before  considering 
the  value  of  such  objections,  we  will  next  inquire 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPELS.  14I 

wliat  positive  evidence  we  have  respecting  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Mark. 

Here  again  there  is  absolute  unanimity  in  the 
belief  of  the  earliest  times.  No  doubt  was  ex¬ 
pressed  for  long  centuries  as  to  the  truth  of  the 
title  which  attributed  the  second  Gospel  to  St. 
Mark.  This  person  is  generally  acknowledged 
to  be  the  same  as  the  ‘‘John,  whose  surname  was 
]\Iark,”  mentioned  several  times  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  as  well  as  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
and  St.  Peter.  He  was  the  cousin  of  Barnabas, 
and  is  called  by  St.  Peter  (i  Pet.  5:13),  “My 
son,”  perhaps  as  having  been  converted  by  him. 
His  mother  was  the  Mary  in  whose  house  in  Je¬ 
rusalem  the  Christians  are  described  as  ineetinQf 
in  the  earliest  days  after  the  foundation  of  the 
Church.  Acts  12:12.  He  accompanied  Paul 
and  Barnabas  on  their  first  missionary  journey; 
and  though  there  was  a  temporary  separation  be¬ 
tween  him  and  St.  Paul,  he  is  afterwards  men¬ 
tioned  by  that  apostle  as  one  of  his  most  valued 
attendants.  At  another  time,  as  we  have  seen, 
he  was  with  St.  Peter,  and  Papias  tells  us  that  he 
acted  as  St.  Peter’s  interpreter.  He  was,  there¬ 
fore,  at  least  as  much  as  St.  Luke,  in  a  position 
to  ascertain  the  truth  respecting  our  Lord’s  min¬ 
istry.  In  his  case  also  the  tradition  of  antiquity 
is  supported  by  the  evidence  of  Papias.  That  wri- 


142  AUMENTICITY  OF'  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

ter  related  that  “  tlie  elder,”  who  was  either  St. 
John  the  apostle  or  a  presbyter  contemporary 
with  the  apostle,  gave  him  the  following  account: 

‘  ‘  Mark,  having  become  interpreter  of  Peter, 
wrote  down  accurately  everything  that  he  re¬ 
membered,  without  however  recording  in  order 
what  was  either  said  or  done  by  Christ.  For 
neither  did  he  hear  the  Ford,  nor  did  he  follow 
him;  but  afterwards,  as  I  said,  [attended]  Peter, 
who  adapted  his  instructions  to  the  needs  [of  his 
hearers],  but  had  no  design  of  giving  a  connected 
account  of  the  Ford’s  oracles  [or  discourses].  So, 
then,  Mark  made  no  mistake  while  he  thus  wrote 
down  some  things  as  he  remembered  them,  for  he 
made  it  his  one  care  not  to  omit  anything  that  he 
heard,  or  to  set  down  any  false  statement  therein.  ’  ’  * 

Now  if  these  statements  of  Papias  apply  to 
our  present  Gospels,  they  furnish  invaluable  evi¬ 
dence  as  to  their  early  date  and  as  to  their  author¬ 
ship.  Once  more  we  will  ask  M.  Renan  to  tell 
us  how  far  in  his  opinion  the  criticism  by  which 
this  applicability  is  disputed  has  made  out  its 
case.  In  his  Preface  to  his  “Fife  of  Jesus” 
(p.  51),  after  reciting  the  testimony  of  Papias,  he 
says,  “It  is  certain  that  these  two  descriptions 

■•••  We  have  availed  ourselves  of  Bishop  Lightfoot’s  translations, 
given  in  his  article  on  “  Papias,”  in  the  “  Contemporary  Review” 
for  August,  1875. 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  143 

correspond  well  enough  to  the  general  physiog¬ 
nomy  of  the  two  books  now  called  ‘  The  Gospel 
aceording  to  Matthew  ’  and  ‘  The  Gospel  accord¬ 
ing  to  j\Iark  ’ — the  first  being  characterised  by  its 
long  discourses,  the  second  being  specially  anec¬ 
dotic,  much  more  exact  than  the  first  in  the  de¬ 
tails,  brief  to  the  extent  of  dryness,  poor  in  dis¬ 
courses,  and  but  ill  put  together.  ” 

This  surely  is  sufficient  for  practical  purposes; 
and,  considering  the  slightness  of  the  account  of 
Papias,  such  a  general  correspondence  as  is  here 
admitted  would  seem  as  much  as  could  be  re¬ 
quired.  M.  Renan,  however,  goes  on  to  lay  upon 
Papias’  words  that  undue  stress  already  noticed, 
and  to  argue  that  the  work  of  St.  Matthew  which 
Papias  had  before  him  can  only  have  contained 
discourses,  and  that  therefore  subsequent  additions 
must  have  been  made  to  it,  out  of  which  our  pres¬ 
ent  Gospel  has  arisen;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
additions  have  been  made  to  the  original  St. 
Mark  in  order  to  supply  its  omissions  and  to 
make  it  more  like  St.  Matthew’s  work.  Of  any 
such  revision  of  the  original  forms  of  these  two 
Gospels  there  is  not  a  single  trace  of  external 
evidence,  nor  does  M.  Renan  pretend  to  produce 
any;  and  the  best  means  of  estimating  the  weight 
to  be  attached  to  such  a  suggestion  is  afforded  by 
further  conclusions  expressed  by  himself.  As  the 


l44  authenticity  oe  the  eour  gospees. 

result  of  Ills  inquiries  into  the  value  of  the  four 
Gospels  he  expresses  himself  as  follows: 

“To  sum  up,  I  admit  the  four  canonical  Gos¬ 
pels  as  serious  documents.  All  go  back  to  the 
age  which  followed  the  death  of  Jesus.  But  their 
historical  value  is  very  diverse.  St.  Matthew 
evidently  deserves  peculiar  confidence  for  the  dis¬ 
courses.  Here  are  ‘  the  oracles,  ’  the  very  notes 
taken  while  the  memory  of  the  instruction  of  Je¬ 
sus  was  living  and  definite.  A  kind  of  flashing 
brightness,  at  once  sweet  and  terrible,  a  divine 
force,  if  I  may  so  say,  underlines  these  words,  de¬ 
taches  them  from  the  context,  and  renders  them 
easily  recognizable  by  the  critic”  (p.  8i). 

Now  we  ask  with  what  reason  it  can  be  main¬ 
tained  that  a  Gospel  like  that  of  St.  Matthew  de¬ 
serves  “peculiar  confidence”  in  its  most  char¬ 
acteristic  and  most  vital  elements,  but  that  this 
confidence  is  at  once  to  be  withdrawn  from  it 
whenever  a  critic  like  M.  Renan  fails  to  appreci¬ 
ate  the  importance  or  the  vividness  of  its  observa¬ 
tions.  If  a  witness  comes  into  court  and  is  found 
to  be  absolutely  trustworthy  in  a  vital  and  char¬ 
acteristic  portion  of  his  evidence,  would  it  be 
deemed  reasonable  to  say  that  he  is  not  to  be  be¬ 
lieved  in  the  other  part  of  his  evidence  because 
you  do  not  like  it  or  do  not  understand  it?  Bet 
us  take  a  particular  instance.  That  from  which 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  145 

M.  Renan  and  all  skeptical  critics  shrink  in  the 
Gospel  narratives  is,  as  we  shall  have  further  occa¬ 
sion  to  observe,  their  miraculous  element.  Now 
the  eighth  and  ninth  chapters  of  St.  Matthew’s 
Gospel  contain  a  record  of  ten  of  our  Lord’s  mira¬ 
cles,  and  these  are  one-half  of  the  whole  number 
recorded  by  that  evangelist.  But  this  record  of  all 
these  works  of  supernatural  power  and  mercy  im¬ 
mediately  follows  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  In 
the  three  chapters  preceding  this  miraculous  rec¬ 
ord  St.  Matthew  has  preserved  to  us,  with  a  viv¬ 
idness  and  force  of  which  the  most  skeptical  are 
sensible,  a  long  discourse  by  our  Lord  of  the  most 
momentous  import,  which  is  universally  felt  to 
embody  some  of  his  most  characteristic  teaching. 
Now  is  it  not  a  strange  paradox  to  suppose  that  in 
a  record  which  is  marked,  as  almost  all  admit,  by 
a  substantial  unity  of  design,  we  should  pass  im¬ 
mediately  from  such  teaching  as  that  of  the  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount  to  a  similarly  long  narrative 
of  wholly  untrustworthy  reminiscences  ?  In  the 
one  passage  we  are  surrounded  with  a  bla^e  of 
moral  and  spiritual  light  piercing  to  the  very 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  burning  up  all 
falsehood  in  word  or  deed,  all  hypocrisy  and  un¬ 
reality;  and  in  the  next  passage  we  are  asked  to 
believe  that  we  find  ourselves  in  an  atmosphere 
of  illusion,  credulity,  and  uncertainty.  Such  a 


146  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 

transition  from  absolute  light — light  nndimmed, 
nnobscured  by  a  single  shadow,  unperverted  by  a 
single  false  color — may  well  be  regarded  as  in¬ 
conceivable.  But  it  is  the  same  throughout  the 
Gospels.  Many  of  our  Lord’s  most  precious  say¬ 
ings  are  inseparably  bound  up  with  his  miracles, 
arise  out  of  them,  and  point  their  lessons.  The 
two  are  indissolubly  united;  and  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  is  thus  itself  the  best  guarantee  for  the 
miraculous  narratives  which  immediately  follow. 

In  short,  when  M.  Renan  allows  that  Papias’ 
language  corresponds  “very  fairly”  (asse^  bien) 
to  our  present  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  and  that 
the  discourses,  at  all  events,  in  that  Gospel  de¬ 
serve  “peculiar  confidence,”  he  at  any  rate  justi¬ 
fies  us  in  concluding  that  criticism  can  make  out 
no  such  case  against  the  authenticity  and  credi¬ 
bility  of  the  book  as  deserves  to  be  put  in  the 
balance  against  the  unanimous  external  evidence 
in  its  favor.  But  with  respect  to  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Mark  his  admissions  are  even  more  striking  and 
decisive. 

“The  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,”  he  says,  p.  82, 

‘  ‘  is  the  one  of  the  first  three  which  has  remained 
the  most  ancient,  the  most  original,  and  to  which 
the  least  of  later  additions  have  been  made.  The 
details  of  fact  possess  in  St.  Mark  a  definiteness 
which  we  seek  in  vain  in  the  other  evangelists. 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPEUS.  147 

He  is  fond  of  reporting  certain  sayings  of  our 
Lord  in  Syro-Chaldaic.  He  is  full  of  minute  ob¬ 
servations,  proceeding,  beyond  doubt,  from  an  eye¬ 
witness.  There  is  nothing  to  conflict  with  the 
supposition  that  this  eye-witness,  who  had  evi¬ 
dently  followed  Jesus,  who  had  loved  him  and 
watched  him  in  close  intimacy,  and  who  had  pre¬ 
served  a  vivid  image  of  him,  was  the  apostle  Pe¬ 
ter  himself,  as  Papias  has  it.” 

What  is  this  but  to  say  that  criticism  has  failed 
to  establish  any  valid  objections  against  the  tradi¬ 
tional  belief  of  the  Church  that  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Mark  is  the  book  of  which  Papias  spoke  as  hav¬ 
ing  been  written  by  St.  Mark  from  the  narratives 
of  St.  Peter,  and  that  it  contains  the  very  remi¬ 
niscences  of  that  apostle  ? 

Let  us  then  consider  what  is  the  general  result 
of  this  review  of  the  evidence  for  our  first  three 
Gospels,  and  of  the  validity  of  modern  critical 
objections,  as  estimated  by  the  most  famous  skep¬ 
tical  critic  of  our  generation.  M.  Renan,  with  all 
these  objections  before  him,  being  as  well  quali¬ 
fied  by  his  learning  as  any  scholar,  whether  in 
this  country  or  abroad,  to  judge  of  such  criticism, 
and  being  necessarily  predisposed  by  his  disbelief 
of  Christian  truths  in  favor  of  objections  against 
the  credibility  of  the  sacred  writings,  nevertheless 
finds  himself  obliged  to  come  to  the  conclusion 


148  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

that  the  old  traditions  respecting  the  first  three 
Gospels  are  at  least  substantially  true.  He  ad¬ 
mits  that  all  four  Gospels  were  written  in  the  age 
following  the  death  of  our  Hord,  and  therefore 
while  many  of  His  contemporaries  were  living; 
he  admits  that  the  third  Gospel,  and  also'  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  were  written  in  their  present 
form  by  St.  Huke,  who  was  St.  Paul’s  intimate 
companion,  and  who  visited  Jerusalem  with  him; 
he  admits  that  the  discourses  of  our  Hord,  at  all 
events  in  the  first  Gospel,  were  recorded  by  St. 
Matthew,  one  of  the  twelve  apostles,  and  that 
they  deserve  to  be  accepted  with  peculiar  confi¬ 
dence;  and  he  further  admits  that  the  second  Gos¬ 
pel  was  in  substance  written  by  St.  Mark,  that  it 
is  the  most  original  in  its  present  form  of  the  three, 
that  it  bears  numerous  marks  of  the  reminiscen¬ 
ces  of  an  eye-witness,  and  that  there  is  nothing  to 
lead  us  to  doubt  the  ancient  tradition  that  this 
eye-witness  was  St.  Peter  himself. 

In  short,  this  is  the  result  of  modern  criticism 
as  represented  by  M.  Renan:  that  in  St.  Matthew 
we  have  our  Rord’s  teaching  recorded  by  an  apos¬ 
tle  himself;  in  St.  Mark  we  have  the  vivid  rem¬ 
iniscences  of  another  apostle,  who  was  one  of 
the  three  most  intimate  with  our  Lord;  and  that 
in  St.  Luke  we  have  the  mature  and  deliberate 
record  of  a  cultivated  writer,  who,  being  a  physi- 


AUTHENTICITY  OT  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES.  149 

cian,  was  also  trained  in  habits  of  observation, 
after  a  careful  inquiry  from  contemporaries, 
amid  the  very  scenes  where  the  events  he  records 
were  transacted.  We  repeat  that  we  do  not 
rest  these  facts  respecting  the  first  three  Gospels 
on  M.  Renan’s  investigations.  They  stand,  in 
the  first  instance,  on  the  direct  evidence  of  his¬ 
toric  tradition,  by  which  the  authorship  of  all 
other  books  is  determined.  _But  we  appeal  to 
M.  Renan  as  affording  abundant  proof  that  mod¬ 
ern  criticism  has  produced  no  argument  sufficient 
to  counterbalance,  or  even  seriously  to  affect 
this  evidence. 

We  now  turn  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John;  and, 
vehement  as  has  been  the  controversy  on  this 
subject,  the  case  in  favor  of  its  authenticity  ad¬ 
mits  of  being  more  simply  and  decisively  stated 
than  even  the  case  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  In 
the  first  place,  the  primary  evidence  to  its  author¬ 
ship  is  peculiarly  definite  and  direct.  Irenaeus, 
who  became  Bishop  of  Lyons  about  177  A.  D., 
was  a  pupil  of  a  famous  disciple  of  St.  John,  Poly¬ 
carp,  who  died  as  a  martyr  in  the  year  155  or  156. 
Irenaeus  tells  us,  in  a  letter  of  remonstrance  he 
wrote  to  a  fellow-pupil,  Florinus,  who  had  lapsed 
into  heresy,  how  vividly  he  remembered  Poly¬ 
carp’s  instructions  and  conversation; 

‘  ‘  I  distinctly  remember,  ’  ’  he  says,  ‘  ‘  the  inci- 


150  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

dents  of  tliat  time  better  than  events  of  recent 
occurrence;  for  the  lessons  received  in  childhood, 
growing  with  the  growth  of  the  soul,  become 
identified  with  it;  so  that  I  can  describe  the  very 
place  in  which  the  blessed  Polycarp  used  to  sit 
wdien  he  discoursed,  and  his  goings  out  and  his 
comings  in,  and  his  manner  of  life,  and  his  per¬ 
sonal  appearance,  and  the  discourses  which  he 
held  before  the  people,  and  how  he  would  de¬ 
scribe  his  intercourse  with  John  and  with  the 
rest  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  how  he  would 
relate  their  words.  And  whatsoever  things  he 
had  heard  from  them  about  the  Lord,  and  about 
his  miracles,  and  about  his  teaching.  Polycarp, 
as  having  received  them  from  eye-witnesses  of  the 
life  of  the  Word,  would  relate  altogether  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  Scriptures.”  (Buseb.  Hist. 
Bed.,  V.  20.) 

In  order  to  appreciate  what  this  involves,  we 
must  ask  what  Irenseus  meant  by  the  “Scrip¬ 
tures.”  Of  course  the  expression  must  refer  to 
those  portions  of  the  Scriptures  which  narrate 
the  life  of  our  Lord,  and  Irenseus  has  stated  in  a 
memorable  passage  what  these  records  were.  In 
the  third  book  of  his  great  work  on  “The  Refu¬ 
tation  and  Overthrow  of  Knowledge  falsely  so 
called,”  he  relates  briefly,  says  Bishop  Lightfoot,* 
*  “  Contemporary  Review  ”  for  August,  1876,  p.  413. 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  15I 

circumstances  under  which  the  four  Gos¬ 
pels  were  written.  He  points  out  that  the  wri¬ 
tings  of  the  evangelists  arose  directly  from  the 
oral  gospel  of  the  apostles.  He  shows  that  the 
traditional  teaching  of  the  apostles  has  been  pre¬ 
served  by  a  direct  succession  of  elders,  which  in 
the  principal  churches  can  be  traced  man  by 
man,  and  he  asserts  that  this  teaching  accords 
entirely  with  the  evangelieal  and  apostolical  wri¬ 
tings.  He  maintains,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  heretics  was  of  comparatively 
recent  growth.  He  assumes  throughout,  not 
only  that  our  four  canonical  Gospels  alone  were 
acknowledged  in  the  church  in  his  own  time, 
but  that  this  had  been  so  from  the  beeinnine. 
His  antagonists  indeed  accepted  these  same  Gos¬ 
pels,  paying  especial  deference  to  the  fourth  evan¬ 
gelist;  accordingly  he  argues  with  them  on  this 
basis.  But  they  also  superadded  other  writings, 
to  which  they  appealed,  while  heretics  of  a  dif¬ 
ferent  type,  as  Marcion  for  instance,  adopted  some 
one  Gospel  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  He 
therefore  urges  not  only  that  four  Gospels  alone 
have  been  handed  down  from  the  begfinnine,  but 
that  in  the  nature  of  things  there  could  not  be 
more  nor  less  than  four.  There  are  four  regions 
of  the  world,  and  four  principal  winds;  and  the 
church  therefore,  as  destined  to  be  conterminous 


152  authe:nticity  of  the  four  gospels. 

with  the  world,  must  be  supported  by  four  Gos¬ 
pels  as  four  pillars.  The  Word  again  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  seated  on  the  cherubim,  who  are  de¬ 
scribed  by  Ezekiel  as  four  living  creatures,  each 
different  from  the  other.  These  symbolize  the 
four  evangelists  with  their  several  characteris¬ 
tics.  The  predominance  of  the  number  four 
again  appears  in  another  way.  There  are  four 
general  covenants — of  Noah,  of  Abraham,  of 
Moses,  of  Christ.  It  is  therefore  an  act  of  auda¬ 
cious  folly  to  increase  or  diminish  the  number  of 
the  Gospels.  As  there  is  fitness  and  order  in  all 
the  other  works  of  God,  so  also  we  may  expect  to 
find  it  in  the  case  of  the  gospel.  ’  ’ 

The  passage  thus  summarized  by  the  present 
learned  Bishop  of  Durham  is  to  be  found  in  the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  the  third  book  of  the  work 
of  Irenseus  just  mentioned,  and  its  immense  signifi¬ 
cance  for  the  purpose  of  our  argument  will  readi¬ 
ly  be  perceived.  The  four  Gospels  we  now  pos¬ 
sess  constituted,  in  the  view  of  Irenaeus,  an  essen¬ 
tial  part  of  “the  Scriptures.’^  The  reasons  he 
gives  for  the  necessity  of  their  being  four  in  num¬ 
ber  may  be  fanciful,  but  they  are  adduced  in 
order  to  explain  what  he  represents  as  a  fact. 
He  appeals,  however,  to  Polycarp’s  authority, 
and  his  view  therefore  respecting  the  four  Gospels 
must  be  in  harmony  with  what  he  had  learned  at 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  153 

Polycarp’s  feet.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  can¬ 
not  fairly  be  avoided  that  Polycarp  himself,  St. 
John’s  own  disciple,  knew  and  recognized  all  four 
Gospels,  not  only  those  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark, 
and  St.  Luke,  but  that  which  was  attributed  to 
his  own  master,  St.  John.  When  Irenseus  tells 
us  that  Polycarp  used  to  describe  “his  intercourse 
with  John  and  wdth  the  rest  who  had  seen  the 
Lord,  ’  ’  and  that  ‘  ‘  whatsoever  things  he  had  heard 
from  them  about  the  Lord  and  about  his  miracles 
and  about  his  teaching”  he  would  relate  “alto¬ 
gether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,”  he 
tells  us  nothing  else  than  that  what  Polycarp  had 
heard  from  John  and  from  the  rest  who  had  seen 
the  Lord  was  in  complete  agreement  with  our 
present  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  St. 
Luke,  and  St.  John.  That  Irenseus  used  precise¬ 
ly  the  same  Gospels  as  are  now  in  our  possession 
is  disputed  by  no  one;  and  these  very  books  he 
says  are  in  full  agreement  with  what  he  heard 
from  Polycarp  and  Polycarp  heard  from  St.  John. 

Now  this  testimony  to  the  first  three  Gospels  is 
of  immense  weight,  for  it  gives  at  all  events  the 
sanction  of  Polycarp,  and  goes  far  to  give  the 
sanction  and  recognition  of  St.  John  himself  to 
those  three  books.  But  with  respect  to  the  Gos¬ 
pel  of  St.  John  it  would  seem  overwhelming. 
The  one  point  upon  which  Polycarp  was  special- 


154  AUraENTiCiTY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPEES. 

ly  qualified  to  bear  testimou}^  to  Irenaeus,  and  on 
which  he  did  bear  testimony,  was  the  teaching  of 
St.  John,  and  that  apostle’s  account  of  our  I^ord’s 
words  and  works.  If,  then,  St.  John  was  not  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  it  conceivable  that 
Irenaeus  should  not  only  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  fact,  but  that  he  should  have  treated  that 
Gospel  as  part  of  “  the  Scriptures,”  and  have  de¬ 
clared  that  it  was  in  entire  conformity  with  what 
he  had  heard  from  his  aged  master  ?  If  the  Gos¬ 
pel  was  by  St.  John,  it  must  have  been  written 
before  the  year  lOO,  and  it  must  have  been  in  cir¬ 
culation  in  Asia  Minor  at  the  time  when  Irenaeus 
was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp.  The  book  must  have 
been  in  their  hands,  and  Polycarp  certainly  must 
have  known  whether  or  not  it  was  the  work  of  his 
own  master.  We  have,  therefore,  the  declared 
and  solemn  evidence  of  a  man  whom  we  may  call 
the  spiritual  and  literary  grandchild  of  St.  John, 
with  the  implied  evidence  of  St.  John’s  own 
child  in  the  faith,  to  the  fact  that  that  apostle 
was  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  We  have 
only  to  add  that  in  early  times  no  doubt  respect¬ 
ing  St.  John’s  authorship  is  expressed  by  any  wri¬ 
ter  likely  to  be  acquainted  with  the  facts ;  and 
it  may  be  confidently  asked  w^hether  more  direct 
and  positive  testim.ony  to  the  authorship  of  an 
ancient  work  could  be  obtained  or  desired  ? 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  EOUR  GOSPEES.  I55 

It  would  need  an  enormous  preponderance  of 
critical  difficulties  to  justify  the  rejection  of  such 
evidence.  We  are  asked  to  doubt  the  very  eyes 
and  ears,  the  very  mind  and  heart,  of  two  of  the 
best  witnesses  in  all  Christian  antiquity ;  and 
what  are  the  objections  on  the  strength  of  which 
this  demand  is  made  upon  us?  We  take  M.  Re¬ 
nan  once  more  as  a  fair  exponent  of  the  force 
which  these  critical  objections  possess,  and  we  are 
content  to  ask  him  to  what  they  amount.  The 
result  will  be  scarcely  credible  to  many  readers; 
but  they  may  easily  verify  for  themselves  what  we 
say.  He  practically  confesses  that  every  objection 
is  insufficient  except  one;  and  what  is  that?  Sim¬ 
ply  that  in  M.  Renan’s  opinion  the  discourses  of 
our  Rord  recorded  by  St.  John  are  “pretentious 
tirades,  heavy,  badly  written,  making  but  little 
appeal  to  the  moral  sense.”  (Introduction  to 
“  Vie  de  Jesus,”  page  69.) 

This  extraordinary  opinion,  which  will  need 
no  refutation  for  most  English  readers,  remains 
M.  Renan’s  sole  substantial  ground  for  rejecting 
St.  John’s  authorship.  At  the  end  of  a  long  ap¬ 
pendix  he  concludes  that  there  are  only  two  alter¬ 
natives:  “  Either  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
was  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  an  intimate  disciple,  and 
from  the  most  early  period ;  or  else  the  author,  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  himself  authority,  has  em- 


15^^  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 

ployed  an  artifice  which  he  has  maintained  from 
the  beginning  of  the  book  to  the  end,  with  the 
view  of  making  it  believed  that  he  was  a  witness 
in  as  good  a  position  as  possible  for  narrating  the 
truth  of  the  facts.”  (Page  537,  15th  edition.)  In 
other  words,  as  M.  Renan  goes  on  to  admit,  the  ' 
author  is  either  St.  John  or  he  is  a  liar.  “There 
is  no  question  here  of  legends,  the  creation  of  the 
multitude,  for  which  no  person  in  particular  is  re¬ 
sponsible.  A  man  who,  to  procure  credence  to 
Avhat  he  narrates,  deceives  the  public  not  only  re¬ 
specting  his  name,  but  still  more  with  respect  to 
the  value  of  his  testimony,  is  not  a  writer  of  leg¬ 
ends,  he  is  a  forger.”  (Page  538.)  M.  Renan 
fully  admits  the  difficulty  of  such  an  alternative, 
and  confesses  as  the  result  of  all  this  discussion 
that  “  at  a  first  glance  it  seems  that  the  most  nat¬ 
ural  hypothesis  is  to  admit  that  all  these  wri¬ 
tings — the  Gospel  and  the  three  Epistles — are 
really  the  work  of  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee.” 
Why  does  not  he  accept  this  “natural  hypothe¬ 
sis”?  He  mentions,  first,  one  or  two  objections 
Vvffiich  are  of  no  real  weight,  and  which  have  been 
given  up  by  other  rationalistic  writers — such  as 
that  the  Greek  in  which  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
written  is  very  different  from  the  Palestinian 
Greek  of  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  this,  as  has  been  often  observed,  is  a  strong 


AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPEUS.  I57 

argument  in  favor  of  St.  John’s  authorship;  for  if 
he  lived  for  thirty  years,  from  A.  D.  70-100,  in  so 
thoroughly  Greek  a  city  as  Ephesus,  he  would  be 
likely  to  acquire  a  purer  Greek  style  than  any  of 
his  fellow-apostles.  M.  Renan  falls  back,  as  his 
main  objection,  on  his  dislike  to  the  discourses  in 
the  fourth  Gospel.  “  The  ideas,  above  all,  are  of 
an  order  entirely  different  from  those  in  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  We  are  here  in 
full  Philonian  and  almost  Gnostic  metaphysic. 
The  discourses  of  Jesus  as  reported  by  this  pre¬ 
tended  witness,  this  intimate  disciple,  are  false, 
often  insipid,  and  impossible.”  That  is  all.  As 
to  the  general  character  of  the  narrative  in  itself, 
it  is  all  in  favor  of  St.  John’s  authorship:  “  Con¬ 
sidered  in  itself,  the  narrative  of  the  material  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  life  of  our  Eord,  as  furnished 
by  the  fourth  evangelist,  is  superior  in  point  of 
verisimilitude  to  the  narrative  of  the  other  three 
Gospels  ”  (p.  536). 

M.  Renan  notices  elsewhere  the  little  traits  of 
precision  in  the  story:  “It  was  the  sixth  hour;” 
“it  was  night;”  “the  servant’s  name  was  Mal- 
chus;”  “  they  had  made  a  fire  of  coals,  for  it  was 
cold;”  “the  coat  was  without  seam;”  and  he 
speaks  of  characteristics  which  are  “inexplicable 
on  the  supposition  that  our  Gospel  was  nothing 
more  than  a  theological  thesis  without  historical 


158  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

value,  but  wliicb  are  intelligible  if  we  see  in  them 
the  reminiscences  of  an  old  man”  (p.  68).  There 
is,  in  a  word,  a  mass  of  internal  as  well  as  exter¬ 
nal  evidence  in  support  of  the  belief  of  Irenaeus 
and  Polycarp  on  this  subject;  but  it  is  all  to  be 
thrown  aside  simply  because  M.  Renan  cannot 
endure  the  exquisite  discourses  which  the  fourth 
Gospel  records ! 

Such  is  the  weakness  of  the  objections  which 
criticism  is  able  to  adduce  against  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  according  _to  the 
testimony  of  the  most  famous  skeptic  of  modern 
times.  The  truth  is  that,  as  was  stated  last  year 
by  Dr.  Bernhard  Weiss,  one  of  the  most  learned 
scholars  of  Germany,  the  disciples  of  Baur,  the 
founder  of  the  Tubingen  school,  have  been  com¬ 
pelled,  “step  by  step,  to  concede  one  after  an¬ 
other  of  the  testimonies  against  which  he  con- 
tended.  Every  new  discovery  since  his  time  .  .  . 
has  positively  refuted  contentions  of  criticism 
which  had  long  been  obstinately  maintained.” 
(“  lycben  Jesu,”  I.  92.) 

One  of  these  recent  discoveries  is  perhaps 
worth  mention.  Tatian,  the  disciple  of  Justin 
Martyr,  was  said  by  tradition  to  have  prepared  a 
harmony  of  our  four  Gospels,  called  the  Diatessa- 
ron.  Of  course,  if  he  did,  the  four  Gospels  must 
have  been  of  recognised  authority  in  his  own 


Authenticity  of  the  four  gospels.  159 

time  and  in  that  of  his  master,  a  consideration 
which  alone  would  take  us  back  to  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century.  Accordingly,  writers  like 
the  author  of  “  Supernatural  Religion”  were  at 
great  pains  to  maintain  that  there  was  no  suffi¬ 
cient  evidence  of  Tatian  having  written  any  such 
harmony  at  all;  and  more  than  this,  that  “it  is 
obvious  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  value  connect¬ 
ing  Tatian’ s  gospel  with  those  in  our  canon” 
(vol.  11.  p.  157,  1879). 

At  the  very  time  these  words  were  published, 
only  four  years  ago,  a  work  by  an  eminent  Chris¬ 
tian  father  had  been  recovered  which  is  regarded 
by  the  general  assent  of  German  scholars  as  a 
commentary  on  Tatian’s  Diatessaron;  and  hence 
even  skeptical  critics  now  generally  admit  that 
Tatian  did  weave  into  one  harmony  the  very  four 
Gospels  which  we  now  possess.  In  short,  as  M. 
Renan  is  acute  enough  to  perceive  and  candid 
enough  to  admit,  all  the  external  critical  objec¬ 
tions  against  the  authenticity  of  our  four  Gospels 
have  successively  broken  down  more  or  less  fa¬ 
tally  ;  and  there  remains  no  other  objection  to 
be  made  to  them  than  that  some  critics  cannot 
understand  or  account  for  them. 

Some  readers  may,  perhaps,  be  disposed  to 
think  that  the  last  sentence  involves  a  rather 
harsh  judgment,  and  it  is  a  statement  we  should 


I 


l6o  AUTHENTICITY  OE  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS. 

not  make  unless,  as  we  shall  observe  in  conclu¬ 
sion,  it  were  made  by  the  critics  themselves.  It 
would  be  natural  to  ask,  at  the  close  of  such  an 
inquiry  as  this,  how  it  is  that  if  the  critical  ob¬ 
jections  against  the  Gospels  are  so  baseless,  they 
should  have  been  maintained  with  such  persisten¬ 
cy  by  scholars  so  learned  and  so  earnest  as  those 
who  have  been  the  leaders  of  the  negative  schools 
in  Germany  for  the  last  fifty  years.  It  is  only  to 
be  explained  on  one  supposition,  and  that  is  that 
they  started  with  a  prejudice  against  the  truth  of 
the  Gospel  narratives,  and  they  were  concerned  at 
almost  any  cost  to  justify  their  disbelief.  Again 
we  say  that  this  is  a  charge  we  should  not  have 
ventured  to  advance  except  on  their  own  confes¬ 
sion  and  avowal ;  but  as  the  avowal  has  been 
made  by  them,  again  and  again,  it  is  equally  ne¬ 
cessary  and  just  that  they  should  be  held  to  the 
consequences  of  it. 

It  will  be  sufficient  on  this  point  to  quote  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Karl  Hase,  one  of  the  most  ven¬ 
erable  scholars  of  Germany,  whose  “Dife  of  Je¬ 
sus,”  published  more  than  fifty  years  ago,  was 
the  first  work  of  the  kind,  who  represents  on  the 
whole  a  decidedly  rationalistic  view,  and  who  has 
lately  reviewed  the  whole  course  of  the  contro¬ 
versy  in  his  “History  of  Jesus,”  published  in 
1876.  He  there  (p.  124)  says  that  the  novelty  of 


/ 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  l6l 

the  mode  of  treatment  adopted  by  himself  and 
by  Strauss  and  his  successors  was  that  the  chief 
writers  of  this  school  labored  in  all  earnestness, 
and  with  all  the  resources  of  science,  “to  repre¬ 
sent  a  purely  human  life,  founded  on  purely 
human  writings.”  That  is,  they  started  from  the 
supposition  that  our  Ibord’s  life  was  purely  human, 
and  therefore  could  have  had  nothing  miraculous 
about  it.  Their  avowed  object  therefore  was,  by 
some  means  or  other,  to  explain  away  the  mi- 
raculous  narratives  contained  in  the  Gospels. 
Strauss  expressed  this  prejudice  in  the  plainest 
language  by  saying  that  ‘  ‘  that  which  could  not 
have  happened  did  not  happen;”  and  consequent¬ 
ly  the  problem  for  the  critic  was  to  explain  how 
four  writers  like  the  authors  of  our  Gospels  came 
to  say  with  such  circumstantiality  that  things 
which  could  not  have  happened  did  happen.  His 
explanation  w^as  that  the  stories  of  the  Gospels 
grew  up  as  myths,  embodying  certain  religious 
and  political  ideas  which  were  then  afloat.  That 
explanation  was  given  up  as  inadequate,  even  by 
his  immediate  successor,  Baur.  Bat  Baur  started 
from  the  same  prejudice,  and  set  himself  a  similar 
task.  The  theory  which  he  and  his  followers 
maintained  was  that  the  Gospels  were  very  late 
productions,  which  had  been  written  with  the 
specific  “tendency”  or  purpose  of  maintaining 


i63  authenticity  oe  the  tour  gospels. 

special  views — Petrine,  Pauline,  or  Joliannine — 
of  the  principles  of  Christianity.  They  invented 
ingenious  combinations  for  this  purpose;  but  as 
Dr.  Hase,  who  admires  them  though  he  differs 
from  them,  observes,  ‘  ‘  the  uncertainty  of  a  nega¬ 
tive  result  was  exhibited  in  this  case  also;  and 
for  Baur  also  the  decisive  reason  is  the  marvel¬ 
lous  and  impossible  character  of  the  contents  of 
the  Gospels”  (p.  143).  So  Baur  himself  said 
(“Canon.  Gospels,”  p.  530)  that  “the  capital 
argument  for  the  later  origin  of  our  Gospels  re¬ 
mains  always  this-— that  each  of  them  for  itself, 
and  still  more  all  of  them  together,  represent  so 
much  in  the  life  of  Jesus  in  a  manner  in  which 
in  reality  it  never  could  have  happened.”  Thus, 
says  Dr.  Hase,  “The  criticism  of  the  Gospels 
comes  back  to  the  criticism  of  Gospel  history ;  .  .  . 
and  the  question  arises  whether  the  Gospels  do 
really  relate  what  is  impossible.” 

Dr.  Hase  thinks  that  the  sacred  narratives  can 
after  all  be  explained  away  into  something  natural 
and  ordinary,  only  magnified  by  excited  imagi¬ 
nations;  and  something  of  the  same  kind  is  M. 
Renan’s  view,  although  the  explanations  of  these 
two  writers  differ  very  widely.  But  M.  Renan 
also  bases  the  whole  of  his  argument  on  the  sup¬ 
position  that  miracles  are  impossible. 

“If,”  he  says,  in  the  Preface  to  his  thirteenth 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  163 

edition  (p.  9.),  “miracles  and  the  inspiration  of 
certain  books  are  realities,  my  method  is  detesta¬ 
ble.  If  miracles  and  the  inspiration  of  books  are 
beliefs  without  reality,  my  method  is  a  good  one. 
But  the  question  of  the  supernatural  is  decided 
for  us  with  perfect  certainty  by  the  single  con¬ 
sideration  that  there  is  no  room  for  believing  in 
a  thing  of  which  the  world  offers  no  experimental 
trace.  ’  ’ 

Accordingly  M.  Renan,  in  his  turn,  must  find 
some  means  of  explaining  away  the  Gospels. 
But  as  we  have  seen,  he  is  compelled  to  admit 
that  all  attempts  to  trace  their  authorship  to  a 
later  age  than  that  of  the  apostles,  or  in  the  main 
to  other  hands  than  those  of  their  traditional 
authors,  has  failed;  and  so  he  endeavors  to  ex¬ 
plain  them  as  a  kind  of  romance. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  will  now  be  seen  that 
the  difficulties  connected  with  the  history  of  the 
four  Gospels  have  never,  at  any  time,  been  based 
upon  candid  and  unprejudiced  criticism.  They 
have  been  raised  in  the  interest  of  a  criticism 
which  started  with  foregone  conclusions,  and 
their  authors  have  been  driven  back  from  post  to 
post,  and  have  had  to  take  refuge  in  one  arbitra¬ 
ry  theory  after  another.  The  “natural  hypothe¬ 
sis”  has  always  been  what  M.  Renan  declares  it 
is  now  in  respect  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  namely, 


164  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPEES. 

tliat  St  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  St  I^uke,  and  St 
John  were  the  real  authors  of  the  four  books  which 
bear  their  names,  and  that  they  are  faithful  wit¬ 
nesses  to  what  actually  occurred.  It  is  remarka¬ 
ble  that  if  we  put  out  of  sight  the  hypothesis  of 
Baur,  now  confessedly  exploded — that  the  four 
Gospels  were  of  late  origin,  and  written  with  a 
controversial  purpose- — no  serious  critic  impugns 
the  good  faith  of  the  writers.  The  only  possible 
objection  which  remains  is  that  all  four  writers 
were  utterly  deluded  as  to  what  they  “saw  and 
heard  and  handled.’’  Other  tracts  of  this  series 
have  dealt  and  will  deal  with  that  extravagant 
supposition.  Our  concern  has  simply  been  to 
show  that  we  possess  in  the  four  Gospels  contem¬ 
porary  records  by  competent  witnesses,  and  that 
criticism  has  been  unable  to  establish  any  serious 
objection  against  this  belief. 


THE 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE 

OF  THE 

RESumiECTioi  OF  Jesus  Christ 

FROM  THE  DEAD. 


BEY.  C.  A.  HOW,  M.  A., 

PREBENDARY  OF  ST.  PAUL’S  CATHEDRAL, 


THE  ARGUMENT  IN  BRIEF. 


Four  Epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul  —  Galatians, 
Romans,  Corinthians  1.  and  II. — are  universally  ad¬ 
mitted  by  learned  unbelievers  to  be  genuine,  and  to 
have  been  written  within  thirty  years  after  the  Cruci¬ 
fixion. 

Taking  these  Epistle  alone,  the  writer  shows  the 
impossibility  of  a  belief  in  the  Resurrection  having 
arisen,  spread  everywhere,  been  accepted  without 
doubt,  and  becoming  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
church,  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  the  reality  of 
the  fact. 


THE  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE 


OF  THE 

Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  Dead. 

—  ■■■■»  ■■■— i 

THE  ARGUMENT  STATED. 

The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  staked 
the  truth  of  Christianity  on  the  actual  performance 
of  a  single  miracle — the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  If,  therefore,  this  cannot  be  proved  to  be 
an  historical  fact,  it  is  a  mere  waste  of  time  and 
trouble  either  to  attack  any  other  of  the  miracles 
of  the  Bible,  or  to  attempt  to  prove  their  truth. 
If  Jesus  Christ  did  not  rise  from  the  dead,  all  the 
other  miracles  which  are  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  would  not  avail  to  prove  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  a  divine  revelation.  If  he  did,  this  one 
alone  proves  it,  and  is  capable  of  supporting  the 
weight  of  all  the  rest.  As  therefore  this  miracle 
constitutes  the  key  of  the  Christian  position,  we 
challenge  unbelievers  to  join  issue  on  its  truth; 


1 68  historicai,  e:vidknce:  ok  the 

and  invite  believers  not  to  allow  their  attention 
to  be  distracted  to  points  of  controversy  where 
the  evidence  is  weaker,  and  which  after  all  do 
not  involve  the  real  point  at  issue. 

I  shall  treat  this  subject  precisely  as  I  would 
any  point  of  secular  history.  I  shall  not  require 
the  reader  to  believe  that  the  New  Testament  is 
inspired.  I  shall  use  the  Gospels  as  I  would  any 
other  memoirs.  I  shall  claim  no  other  authority 
for  the  letters  of  St.  Paul  than  I  would  for  the 
letters  of  Cicero.  The  reader,  on  his  part,  must 
not  object  that  miracles  are  impossible ;  for  whether 
they  are  so  or  not  is  a  philosophical  question 
which  lies  outside  the  regions  of  historical  inquiry: 
and  to  assume  that  they  are  so  is  simply  to  beg 
the  question  which  we  are  professing  to  discuss. 
In  this  tract  I  can  only  deal  with  historical  evi¬ 
dence,  not  with  a  priori  theories. 

My  purpose  is,  to  prove  that  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  fact  which  rests  on  the  high¬ 
est  form  of  historical  evidence.  In  doing  so,  I 
shall  assume  that  no  one  who  reads  this  tract  will 
deny  the  truth  of  certain  facts  which  are  admitted 
by  all  the  learned  unbelievers  of  Europe;  for  to 
attempt  to  prove  the  truth  of  what  they  allow, 
would  be  a  simple  waste  of  time.  I  shall  there¬ 
fore  take  it  for  granted,  that  what  such  men  as 
Strauss,  Renan,  Baur,  and  the  whole  Tubingen 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  169 

school  of  critics  admit,  those  with  whom  I  am 
reasoning  will  not  deny. 

THE  FACTS  ASSUMED. 

1.  That  Jesus  Christ  existed;  that  he  collected 
around  him  a  body  of  followers,  who  believed  in 
him  as  the  Messiah  of  popular  expectation;  and 
that  he  was  crucified  by  the  authority  of  the 
Roman  government. 

2.  That  the  three  first  Gospels  were  published 
in  the  form  in  which  we  now  read  them,  not  later 
than  some  time  during  the  first  twenty  years  of 
the  second  century,  and  one  of  them  not  later 
than  the  last  ten  years  of  the  first  century. 

3.  That  the  four  most  important  letters  of  St. 
Paul,  viz.^  that  to  the  Romans,  the  two  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  that  to  the  Galatians,  were  un¬ 
questionably  written  by  St.  Paul  himself;  and 
that  the  latest  of  them  cannot  have  been  written 
at  a  later  date  than  twenty-eight  years  after  the 
crucifixion. 

4.  That  before  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
i,  ^.,  within  seventy  years  after  the  crucifixion, 
Christian  churches  were  to  be  found  in  all  the 
great  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

If  any  of  my  readers  should  refuse  to  concede 
these  points,  I  appeal  from  their  judgment  to  that 
of  all  the  eminent  critical  unbelievers  of  modern 


170  HISTORICAI,  evidence:  OF  THE 

Europe,  and  say,  ‘  ‘  Do  not  ignorantly  deny  to  be 
historical  facts  what  all  your  own  great  men  affirm 
to  have  been  so.  ’  ’ 

THE  CHURCH  EIGHTEEN  CENTURIES  ODD. 

The  first  point  of  my  proof  is  that  the  Christian 
church  has  existed  as  a  visible  institution,  with¬ 
out  a  single  break  in  its  continuity,  for  a  period 
of  more  than  eighteen  centuries;  and  that  it  can 
be  traced  up  to  the  date  which  Christians  assign 
for  its  origin  by  the  most  unquestionable  historical 
evidence.  Its  existence  therefore  is  a  fact,  and 
must  be  accounted  for.  What  account,  then, 
does  this  great  society  give  of  its  own  origin  ? 

IT  IS  FOUNDED  ON  A  FACT. 

It  asserts,  and  ever  has  asserted,  that  the  cause 
of  its  renewed  life  after  the  death  of  its  Founder^ 
was  the  belief  not  in  any  dogmas  or  doctrines^  but  in 
a  fact — that  Jesus  Christ  rose  again  from  the  dead. 

Now  observe  the  importance  of  the  fact  that 
the  Christian  church  is,  and  ever  has  been,  a 
visible  community.  All  communities  must  have 
had  an  origin  of  some  kind.  The  supposed 
designs  of  its  Founder  were  cut  short  by  his  exe¬ 
cution  by  the  authority  of  the  Roman  govern¬ 
ment.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  the  institution  which 
he  founded  was  set  agoing  again  after  his  death. 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  171 

Its  present  existence  proves  this.  The  Christian 
church  asserts  in  all  its  documents  that  the  sole 
cause  of  its  renewed  life  was  not  that  its  followers 
found  a  new  leader^  but  that  they  believed  that  fesus 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  This  therefore  formed 
the  foundation  on  which  the  society  was  recon¬ 
stituted. 

THIS  THE  ONLY  RATIONAE  ACCOUNT. 

But  observe  further,  if  Jesus  Christ  rose  from 
the  dead,  this  forms  a  rational  account  of  the 
origin  of  this  great  institution.  If  the  fact  be 
denied,  those  who  deny  it  are  bound  to  propound 
some  other  rational  account  of  its  origin.  We 
affirm  that  no  other  theory  can  account  for  it. 

Let  me  illustrate  the  importance  of  the  calling 
into  existence  of  a  great  historical  institution,  and 
of  its  continuous  life  up  to  the  present  time,  as 
a  proof  of  an  historical  fact.  Let  us  take  Mo¬ 
hammedanism  as  an  example.  The  church  of  Mo¬ 
hammed  has  existed  as  a  visible  institution  since 
the  seventh  century.  It  affirms  that  it  owes  its 
origin  to  the  preaching  of  Mohammed  at  Mecca, 
followed  by  his  being  acknowledged  as  prophet 
and  king  at  Medina.  The  facts,  as  reported  by 
his  followers,  are  adequate  accounts  of  its  origin, 
and  the  continuous  existence  of  the  Mohammedan 
Church  from  the  seventh  century  to  the  present 


■  172  HISTORICAL  evidence:  OF  THE 

day  forms  tlie  strongest  possible  corroboration  of 
the  fact,  as  it  has  been  handed  down  by  its  his¬ 
torians  that  its  institution  was  due  to  Mohammed, 
and  that  certain  occurrences,  which  his  followers 
believed  to  have  been  real  events  in  his  life,  were 
the  causes  of  its  existence.  These  events  afford 
a  rational  and  philosophical  account  of  its  origin. 

THEORY  OF  unbelievers. 

But  unbelievers  have  adopted  a  summary  way 
of  disposing  of  the  question  of  the  historical  char¬ 
acter  of  Christianity.  In  place  of  the  account 
which  has  been  accepted  by  the  church  of  its  re¬ 
newed  life,  they  tell  us  that  the  three  first  Gos¬ 
pels  consist  of  a  bundle  of  myths  and  legends,  in¬ 
terspersed  with  a  few  grains  of  historic  truth, 
which  were  gradually  elaborated  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Christian  society  between  A.  D.  30  and  A.  D. 
100.  About  the  latter  date,  or  shortly  afterwards, 
three  unknown  persons  made  a  selection  out  of  a 
large  mass  of  these  stories,  and  published  them  in 
the  form  in  which  we  now  read  them  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels.  These  gradually  superseded 
all  the  other  accounts,  and  were  at  length  ac¬ 
cepted  by  the  church  as  the  authentic  account  of 
the  actions  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  fourth 
Gospel  they  affirm  to  have  been  a  forgery,  which 
first  saw  the  light  about  the  year  A.  D.  170.  I 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  1/3 

need  hardly  add  that  they  also  affirm  that  every 
miracle  which  is  recorded  in  the  Gospels  is  devoid 
of  all  historical  reality,  and  owes  its  origin  to 
the  imaginations  of  these  credulous  believers. 

My  answer  raises  a  distinct  issue;  let  it  be 
fairly  met.  It  is  this:  There  is  one  of  the  miracu¬ 
lous  narratives  in  the  Gospels  which  certainly 
could  not  have  originated  in  this  manner.  This 
is  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ: 
which — whether  it  occurred  as  a  fact,  or  the  belief 
in  it  was  due  to  the  hallucinations  of  his  follow¬ 
ers,  or  was  invented  as  a  fiction — was  believed  in 
by  the  church  as  a  reality  within  an  extremely 
brief  interval  after  its  Founder’s  death.  This 
belief  was  the  foundation  on  which  the  Christian 
church  was  erected,  and  the  cause  of  its  renewed 
vitality. 

IT  IS  A  QUESTION  OE  EACT. 

Now  I  ask  the  reader  to  observe  that  if  it  is 
no  fiction,  but  an  historical  fact,  all  the  theories 
that  have  been  propounded  by  unbelievers  as 
affording  an  adequate  account  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity  fall  to  the  ground,  and  the  account 
of  that  origin  which  has  been  uniformly  handed 
down  by  the  church  is  the  only  one  which  will 
endure  the  test  of  rational  investigation;  in  other 
words,  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 


174  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 

THE  LIFE  AND  DEATH  OF  JESUS  CONCEDED. 

As  it  is  allowed  to  be  an  historical  fact  by  all 
the  distinguished  unbelievers  of  Europe  that  an 
eminent  Jew,  named  Jesus,  collected  a  number  of 
followers,  who  believed  in  him  as  the  Messiah  of 
Jewish  expectations,  I  shall  not  waste  time  in 
proving  that  which  no  one  possessed  of  compe¬ 
tent  information  will  dispute. 

NO  OTHER  JESUS  APPEARED. 

Now  it  is  evident  that  his  public  execution 
must  have  utterly  extinguished  their  hopes  that 
he  could  ever  fulfil  the  expectations  which  they 
had  formed  of  him.  Such  being  the  case,  the 
community  which  he  had  attempted  to  found 
must  have  gone  to  pieces,  unless  a  new  leader 
could  be  discovered  who  was  capable  of  occupy¬ 
ing  his  place.  But  as  its  existence  at  the  present 
moment  proves  that  it  did  not  perish,  it  is  certain 
that  it  must  have  made  a  fresh  start  of  some 
kind — something  must  have  happened  which  was 
not  only  capable  of  holding  it  together,  but  which 
imparted  to  it  a  new  vitality.  It  is  no  less  certain 
that  this  was  not  due  to  a  new  leader  who  stepped 
into  the  place  of  the  original  Founder,  but  to  a 
new  use  which  was  made  of  the  old  one.  Our 
histories  tell  us  that  this  new  impulse  was  im- 


resurrection  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  175 

parted  to  the  society  by  the  belief  that  he  had 
risen  again  from  the  dead.  Whether  this  belief 
was  founded  on  a  fact,  or  was  the  result  of  a  de¬ 
lusion,  it  is  evident  that  it  could  not  have  occu¬ 
pied  many  years  in  growing;  for  while  this  was 
taking  place,  the  original  community  founded  by 
Jesus  must  have  perished  from  want  of  a  bond  of 
cohesion  adequate  to  maintain  it  in  existence. 

THE  RESURRECTION  EARUY  BEUEVED. 

This  being  clear,  I  now  ask  attention  to  the 
fact  that  we  have  the  most  unimpeachable  histor¬ 
ical  evidence  that  this  renewed  life  of  the  church 
rested  on  the  belief  that  its  Founder,  after  he  had 
been  crucified,  rose  again  from  the  dead.  The 
proof  of  this  must  be  derived  from  the  four  letters 
of  the  apostle  Paul,  which  all  the  eminent  unbe¬ 
lievers  of  modern  Europe  admit  to  have  been  his 
genuine  productions.  As  these  letters  form  his¬ 
torical  evidence  of  the  highest  order,  I  must  draw 
attention  to  their  importance. 

CONTEMPORARY  LETTERS. 

It  has  been  often  objected  by  unbelievers  that 
we  have  no  contemporaneous  historical  evidence. 
The  first  three  Gospels,  it  is  said,  cannot  be  proved 
to  have  been  written  until  seventy  or  eighty  years 
after  the  events  recorded  in  them,  and  the  fourth 


176  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OE  THE 

is  a  forgery.  I  reply,  that  even  if  we  allow  this, 
,  for  the  sake  of  argument^  to  be  a  correct  statement 
of  the  facts — which  it  is  not — yet -we  are  in  pos¬ 
session  of  letters  written  by  one  who  was  both  a 
contemporary  and  also  the  most  active  agent  in 
fonnding  the  Christian  church.  Now  contempo¬ 
rary  letters  of  this  kind  are  admitted  by  all  mod¬ 
ern  historians  to  be  the  most  valuable  of  all  his¬ 
torical  documents.  Of  such  we  have  an  example 
in  the  letters  of  the  great  Roman  orator  and  states¬ 
man,  Cicero,  which  were  collected  and  published 
after  his  death,  about  a  century  before  St.  Paul 
wrote  his.  They  still  exist,  and  it  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  they  form  the  most  important  docu¬ 
ments  which  we  possess  for  giving  us  an  insight 
into  the  history  of  Rome  between  B.  C.  100  and 
B.  C.  50.  They  contain  a  continuous  reference 
to  current  events  in  which  the  great  statesman 
bore  a  part,  and  they  enable  us  to  estimate  the 
secret  springs  of  the  events  of  the  time,  and  the 
agencies  which  brought  them  about,  in  a  manner 
which  we  should  utterly  fail  to  do  if  we  had  noth¬ 
ing  to  trust  to  but  the  ordinary  histories  of  the 
period.  It  is  true  that  we  could  not  compose  a 
perfect  history  from  them  alone.  Their  allusions 
to  current  events  are  for  the  most  part  incidental ; 
but  the  general  facts  of  the  history  being  known 
from  other  sources,  they  not  only  furnish  the 


RESURRECTION  OE  jESUS  CHRIST.  I77 

strongest  attestation  to  them,  but  they  enable  us  to 
form  a  correct  estimate  of  their  true  character  in 
a  manner  which  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  us  to  do  if  we  had  nothing  but  the  histories  to 
guide  our  judgment.  In  truth,  Cicero’s  letters 
form  the  most  important  historical  documents 
which  have  been  handed  down  to  us  from  the 
ancient  world. 

A  similar  historical  value  attaches  to  all  col¬ 
lections  of  contemporaneous  letters.  Modern  his¬ 
torians  are  continually  hunting  them  up  in  every 
direction  as  the  best  means  of  throwing  a  clear 
light  on  the  history  of  the  past.  They  are  far 
more  valuable  as  a  means  of  discriminating  truth 
from  falsehood  than  formal  histories,  even  when 
composed  by  historians  who  were  contemporane¬ 
ous  with  the  events.  Such  are  frequently  writ¬ 
ten  under  a  strong  bias,  as,  for  example.  Lord 
Clarendon’s  “History  of  the  Rebellion.”  But 
the  incidental  allusions  in  letters  frequently  put 
us  in  possession  of  facts  and  motives  which  have 
been  carefully  concealed  from  the  world.  This  is 
especially  the  case  in  confidential  communications 
between  friends. 

FOUR  TETTERS  OE  PAUE. 

It  is  therefore  impossible  to  overestimate  the 
importance  of  the  concession  made  to  us  by  the 


178  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 

learned  critical  unbelievers  of  modern  Europe, 
that  beyond  all  question  we  are  in  possession  of 
four  documents  of  this  description,  carrying  us  up 
to  the  earliest  days  of  Christianity.  The  latest 
date  which  can  be  assigned  to  them  is  twenty-eight 
years  after  the  cntcifixion.  These  letters  put  us  into 
direct  communication  with  the  thoughts  of  the 
most  active  missionary  of  the  infant  church,  and 
of  those  to  whom  the  letters  are  addressed.  Their 
character  is  such  that  they  present  us  with  a  liv¬ 
ing  picture  of  the  entire  man  who  wrote  them — 
what  he  did,  what  he  thought,  and  what  he  be¬ 
lieved,  with  a  freshness  and  a  vigor  scarcely  to 
be  found  in  any  other  letters  in  existence.  By 
their  means  we  can  hold  direct  communication 
with  their  author,  and  almost  put  him  into  the 
witness-box.  They  depict  him  as  he  lived, 
thought,  and  moved;  and  they  render  it  indispu¬ 
table  that  he  was  a  man  of  the  most  unimpeach¬ 
able  veracity.  It  is  of  no  little  consequence,  then, 
that  these  letters,  thus  admitted  to  be  genuine, 
form  the  most  important  of  those  which  have 
been  attributed  to  the  apostle. 

I  rest  my  argument  on  these  four  letters  alone. 
At  the  same  time  I  must  not  omit  to  draw  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  fact  that  no  small  number  of  eminent 
critical  unbelievers  admit  the  genuineness  of  four 
more;  but  the  first  four  are  amply  sufficient  for 


MSURRKCTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  1 79 

my  present  purpose,  and  I  shall  therefore  rest  no 
portion  of  my  proof  upon  the  disputed  ones. 

WRITTEN  FROM  FRESH  MEMORIES. 

Having  pointed  out  the  value  of  contempora¬ 
neous  letters,  I  now  ask  the  attention  of  the  reader 
to  the  fact  that  these  four  letters  of  St.  Paul  were 
written  within  that  interval  of  time  after  the  date 
of  the  crucifixion  which  the  more  rigid  canons  of 
criticism  lay  down  as  within  the  period  of  the 
most  perfect  historical  recollection.  There  is  no 
possibility  of  dating  them  eighty  or  ninety  years 
after  the  events,  as  unbelievers  for  their  own  con¬ 
venience  endeavor  to  date  the  first  three  Gospels, 
in  order  that  they  may  get  time  during  which  it 
might  have  been  possible  for  a  number  of  fictions 
*to  have  grown  up  in  the  Christian  church,  and 
superseded  the  genuine  events  of  its  Founder’s 
life.  Not  only  were  they  written  within  twe7ity- 
eight  years  of  the  crucifixion  by  one  whose  activity  as 
a  missionary  of  Christiariity  had  extended  over  the 
preceding  twenty  years ^  but  he  was  theit  of  such  an 
age  that  his  historical  recollectio7ts  were  good  for  at 
least  fifteen  years  earlier.  Although  he  had  not 
seen  Jesus  Christ  before  His  crucifixion,  he  must 
have  conversed  with  multitudes  who  had  done  so 
and  had  heard  Him  teach.  In  these  letters,  there¬ 
fore,  we  are  in  possession  of  a  contemporaneous 


l8o  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OK  THE 

record  of  tlie  highest  order,  amply  satisfying  the 
strictest  rules  laid  down  by  the  late  Sir  G.  C. 
Ivewis  in  his  great  work  on  the  credibility  of  early 
Roman  history,  in  which  he  has  rigidly  analysed 
the  value  of  historical  evidence.  As  the  subject 
on  which  he  treats  is  one  purely  secular,  and  he  is 
usually  considered  to  be  very  strict  in  his  demands 
for  historical  evidence,  I  refer  the  reader  to  this 
work  with  confidence. 

I^et  us  test,  by  our  own  practical  experience, 
the  value  of  historical  recollections  that  are  only 
twenty-eight  years  old.  This  period  of  time  is 
three  years  less  than  the  interval  which  separates 
us  at  the  present  year,  1882,  from  the  coup-d''ztat 
which  made  Napoleon  the  third  emperor  of  the 
French.  Our  recollections  of  that  event  are  so 
lively  that  it  is  simply  impossible  that  we  could 
become  the  prey  of  a  number  of  legendary  stories 
respecting  it.  Such  stories  can  only  grow  up 
after  considerable  intervals  of  time,  when  the  rec¬ 
ollection  of  events  has  lost  its  freshness,  and  the 
generation  w^hich  has  witnessed  them  has  died 
out.  Let  the  reader  observe,  then,  that  St.  Paul, 
when  he  wrote  these  Epistles,  was  separated  from 
the  crucifixion  by  an  interval  of  time  not  so  great 
as  that  which  separates  us  from  the  event  in  ques¬ 
tion.  Add  three  years  more,  and  it  will  include 
the  whole  of  our  Ford’s  ministry. 


resurrection  of  JESUS  CHRIST.  l8l 


THE  DATE  OF  PAUL’S  CONVERSION. 

The  latest  possible  date  which  can  be  assigned 
for  the  conversion  of  the  apostle  is  A.  D.  40,  or 
ten  years  after  the  crucifixion.  But  this  is  far  too 
late;  and  several  concurrent  probabilities  fix  it  at 
five  or  six  years  earlier.  St.  Paul  therefore  had 
the  amplest  means  of  information  as  to  what  were 
the  beliefs  of  the  Christians  at  this  early  period, 
and  must  not  only  have  had  the  most  positive  cer¬ 
tainty  respecting  what  it  was  on  which  the  re¬ 
newed  vitality  of  the  church  rested,  but  he  could 
not  have  failed  to  have  known  that  his  primitive 
followers  also  ascribed  a  number  of  superhuman 
actions  to  our  Lord.  Nor  was  this  all.  For  some 
time  previous  to  his  conversion  he  had  acted  the 
part  of  the  fierce  persecutor  of  the  church.  This 
fact  we  learn  from  his  own  pen.  In  acting  this 
part,  common  sense  would  have  suggested  to  him 
the  necessity  of  minutely  scrutinizing  the  tenets 
of  the  new  society,  and,  above  all,  of  investiga¬ 
ting  with  the  utmost  care  the  foundation  on  which 
it  rested:  namely,  the  alleged  resurrection  of  its 
Founder.  He  must  therefore  have  been  fully  cog¬ 
nizant  of  the  beliefs  of  the  church  in  connection 
with  this  event,  and  as  a  vehement  opponent  he 
must  have  done  his  utmost  to  expose  any  delusion 
respecting  it. 


i82 


HISTORICAI.  EVIDE:nCK  OF  THE 


WHAT  THE  epistles  PROVE. 

Having  thus  pointed  out  the  value  of  St.  Paul’s 
Epistles  as  historical  evidence,  I  will  now  state 
the  chief  facts  which  can  be  distinctly  proved  by 
them,  and  the  nature  of  the  evidence  which  they 
furnish  of  the  historical  truth  of  the  resurrection. 

1.  They  make  it  certain  that  not  only  did  St. 
Paul  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  an  historical  fact,  but  that  he  considered  it  as 
the  foundation  on  which  the  life  of  the  revived 
Christian  community  was  based.  Whatever  may 
have  been  urged  respecting  his  references  to  mi¬ 
raculous  powers  possessed  by  himself,  his  refer¬ 
ences  to  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  are  of  the 
most  unimpeachable  character.  They  are  too 
numerous  for  quotation  here ;  I  will  therefore 
only  refer  to  one.  In  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  he  expressly  as¬ 
serts  that  if  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not 
a  fact,  Christianity  is  a  delusion. 

2.  His  mode  of  reference  to  this  event  proves 
that  he  not  only  himself  believed  in  it  as  a  fact, 
but  that  he  did  not  entertain  the  smallest  doubt 
that  those  to  whom  he  wrote  believed  it  as  firmly 
as  himself.  He  refers  to  it  in  the  most  direct 
terms;  he  also  refers  to  it  in  the  most  incidental 
manner  as  the  foundation  of  the  common  faith 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  183 

both  of  himself  and  of  those  to  whom  he  wrote. 
He  evidently  calculates  that  they  would  receive 
his  statements  respecting  it  without  the  smallest 
hesitation.  Now  nothing  is  more  valuable  than 
incidental  references  such  as  these  to  an  event. 
They  prove  that  the  writer,  and  those  to  whom 
he  writes,  know  all  about  it,  and  have  a  common 
belief  respecting  it.  I  ask  the  reader  to  observe 
how  this  is  exemplified  in  the  ordinary  letters 
which  we  write.  When  we  are  of  opinion  that 
our  correspondent  is  fully  acquainted  with  an  oc¬ 
currence,  we  simply  allude  to  it,  without  entering 
into  a  formal  description  of  it;  and  we  feel  sure 
that  our  view  of  the  fact  is  accepted  by  him. 
Such  is  the  manner  in  which  St.  Paul  refers  to 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  throughout  these 
letters,  with  the  exception  of  i  Cor.  15  and  Gal. 
I  and  2,  where  his  reference  is  for  purposes  di¬ 
rectly  historical  and  controversial. 

3.  But  observe  further:  there  are  circumstan¬ 
ces  connected  with  these  allusions  which  render 
this  testimony  stronger  than  any  other  in  history. 
Party  spirit  raged  fiercely  in  two  of  these  church¬ 
es.  In  the  Corinthian  Church  there  were  several 
parties  who  were  more  or  less  adverse  to  St.  Paul. 
He  names  three  of  them,  namely,  an  Apollos 
party;  another,  which  professed  to  be  the  follow¬ 
ers  of  St.  Peter;  and  a  third,  which  claimed  in  a 


l84  ■  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 

Special  sense  to  be  the  followers  of  Christ.  Be¬ 
sides  these  he  specifies  a  fourth  party,  which  was 
especially  attached  to  himself.  One  of  these  par¬ 
ties  went  to  the  extreme  length  of  denying  his  right 
to  the  apostolical  office  on  the  gronnd  that  he  had  not 
been  one  of  the  ojiginal  companions  of  fesns.  No 
small  portion  of  the  second  Epistle  is  occupied 
with  dealing  with  this  party  and  defending  his 
own  position  against  them. 

Such  being  the  state  of  affairs  in  this  church, 
it  is  obvious  that  if  the  party  in  opposition  to  the 
apostle  had  held  different  views  respecting  the 
reality  of  the  resurrection  from  himself,  the  demo¬ 
lition  of  his  entire  defence  would  have  been  cer¬ 
tain.  He  puts  the  question,  '■'‘Have  I  not  seen  fe- 
sus  Christ  oitr  LordV''  I  do  not  quote  these  words 
as  evidence  that  he  had  really  seen  him,  but  as  a 
proof  that  if  his  opponents  had  not  been  firmly 
persuaded  that  the  resurrection  was  a  fact,  it 
would  have  been  an  unanswerable  reason  for 
affrming  that  his  claim  to  apostolical  authority, 
based  on  his  having  seen  the  risen  Jesus,  was 
worthless,  because  he  had  not  risen.  This  refer¬ 
ence  also  proves  that  the  Petrine  and  the  Christ 
party  in  this  church,  which  latter  doubtless 
claimed  to  represent  the  most  primitive  form  of 
Christianity,  must  have  been  firmly  persuaded 
that  the  original  apostles  had  seen  their  risen 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  185 

Master.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  so  far  as 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  is  concerned,  St.  Paul 
and  his  bitterest  opponents  in  the  church  must 
have  been  agreed  as  to  its  truth. 

4.  The  evidence  which  is  furnished  by  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  still  more  conclusive. 
Here  there  was  a  powerful  party,  who  not  only 
denied  St.  Paul’s  apostleship,  but  who  had  so  far 
departed  from  his  teaching  that  he  designates 
their  doctrines  by  the  name  of  a  different  gospel. 
This  party  had  been  so  successful  that  they  had 
drawn  away  a  large  number  of  his  own  converts. 
No  one  can  read  this  letter  without  seeing  that 
the  state  of  things  in  this  church  touched  him  to 
the  quick.  It  is  full  of  the  deepest  bursts  of  feel¬ 
ing;  yet  the  whole  Epistle  is  written  with  the  most 
absolute  confidence  that  however  great  were  the 
differences  between  his  opponents  and  himself, 
there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion  between  them 
that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  the 
foundation  stone  of  their  common  Christianity. 
Hear  his  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  letter: 
“  Paul,  an  apostle  (not  from  men,  neither  through 
men,  but  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Fa¬ 
ther,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead\  and  all  the 
brethren  which  are  with  me,  unto  the  churches 
of  Galatia.  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  quickly  re¬ 
moving  from  him  that  called  you  in  the  grace  of 


l86  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OE  THE 

Christ  unto  a  different  gospel,  which  is  not  an¬ 
other  gospel ;  only  there  are  some  that  trouble 
you,  and  would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Christ.  But 
though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  should 
preach  unto  you  any  gospel  other  than  that  which 
we  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  anathema.” 
Gal.  I  :  1-8.  Revised  Version. 

If  St.  Paul’s  belief  and  that  of  his  opponents 
on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  had  not  been  at 
complete  accord,  no  man  in  his  senses  would  have 
thrown  down  such  a  challenge  as  that  which  is 
contained  in  these  words,  and  also  in  terms  equally 
strong  throughout  the  entire  Epistle. 

5.  But  the  evidence  which  is  furnished  in  this 
letter  goes  far  beyond  the  mere  belief  of  the  Ga¬ 
latian  churches  at  the  time  it  was  written.  It 
involves  the  testimony  of  two  other  churches  : 
namely,  that  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  and  of 
the  church  at  Jerusalem;  the  one  the  metropolis 
of  Gentile,  and  the  other  of  Jewish  Christianity, 
and  carries  us  up  to  the  briefest  interval  after  the 
crucifixion.  St.  Paul’s  opponents  were  Judai^ing 
Christians,  who  professed  to  be  the  followers  of 
St.  Peter  and  St.  James.  St.  Paul,  in  the  second 
chapter  of  this  Epistle,  asserts  that  his  teaching 
was  in  substantial  harmony  with  that  of  these  two 
great  chiefs  of  the  Jewish  Church.  It  follows, 
therefore,  as  their  professed  adherents  concurred 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  187 

with  him  in  believing  that  the  resurrection  was  a 
fact,  that  these  two  apostles  must  have  been  per¬ 
suaded  that  they  themselves  had  seen  their  risen 
Lord,  and  that  the  whole  Jewish  Church  must 
have  concurred  with  them  in  this  belief.  This 
same  chapter  also  makes  it  certain  that  the  entire 
church  at  Antioch  did  the  same  at  the  period 
when  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  jointly  visited  it,  and 
involves  the  fact  of  St.  Peter’s  direct  testimony  to 
the  truth  of  the  resurrection.  This  proves  for 
certain  that  this  belief  was  no  late  after-growth, 
but  that  it  was  coincident  with  the  renewed  life 
of  the  Christian  church  immediately  after  the  cru¬ 
cifixion. 

6.  Let  us  now  consider  the  evidence  furnished 
by  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

If  it  be  urged  that  St.  Paul  had  founded  the 
churches  of  Corinth  and  Galatia,  and  that  even 
his  opponents  may  have  adopted  his  views  on  this 
point,  the  church  at  Rome,  at  any  rate,  was  one 
which  he  had  neither  founded  nor  visited.  It  had 
evidently  been  in  existence  several  years  before 
he  wrote  his  letter  to  them;  and  it  was  a  church 
so  large  and  important  that  he  felt  that  he  was 
in  no  danger  of  being  misapprehended  when  he 
said  that  ''''  tJieir  faith  zvas  a  subject  of  conversation 
throiighotit  the  zvhole  worlds  It  contained  a  large 
Jewish  element;  and  from  the  number  of  stran- 


1 88  HISTORICAI.  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 

gers  who  visited  the  imperial  city  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  among  its  members  must  have  been 
representatives  of  every  variety  of  Christian 
thought.  Yet  he  addressed  the  church  with  the 
fullest  confidence  that  its  members  held  the  same 
views  respecting  the  resurrection  as  himself. 
This  is  set  forth  in  the  opening  words  of  the  Epis¬ 
tle:  “Declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power 
according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  from  the  dead^  ’  ’  -Rom.  1:4;  and  the  same 
truth  permeates  the  entire  contents  of  the 
Epistle. 

We  have  thus  fully  proved,  that  within  a  pe¬ 
riod  of  less  than  twenty-eight  years  after  the  cru¬ 
cifixion,  three  large  churches,  separated  from  each 
other  by  several  hundred  miles,  were  all  of  the 
same  mind  in  believing  that  Jesus  Christ  had 
risen  from  the  dead ;  and  that  this  belief  formed  an 
essential  ground  of  the  existence  of  the  Christian 
community.  I  ask  the  reader  to  consider  how 
long  it  must  have  taken  for  such  a  belief  to  have 
grown  up  among  churches  thus  widely  separated. 
It  is  useless,  therefore,  to  assert  that  the  miracu¬ 
lous  stories  of  the  Gospels  grew  up  gradually 
during  the  first  century,  and  that  they  thus  be¬ 
came  mistaken  for  history,  for  our  evidence  is 
simply  overwhelming  that  the  greatest  of  all 
miracles  was  implicitly  believed  in  by  the  entire 


resurrection  of  JESUS  CHRIST.  189 

churcli  within  less  than  twenty-eight  years  after 
the  crucifixion. 

7.  But  further:  this  belief  was  not  then  one 
of  recent  growth.  The  mode  in  which  allusion 
is  made  to  it  proves  that  it  must  have  been  con¬ 
temporaneous  with  their  first  belief  in  Christian¬ 
ity  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  St.  Paul  wrote. 
Many  of  these,  as  we  have  seen,  were  Jewish 
Christians,  who  must  have  been  very  early  con¬ 
verts,  or  have  derived  their  faith  from  those  who 
were.  The  allusions  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala¬ 
tians  plainly  include  the  testimony  of  St.  James 
and  St.  Peter.  We  also  find,  by  a  most  incidental 
allusion  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  there 
were  two  members  of  that  church  who  had  em¬ 
braced  Christianity  before  St.  Paul.  The  allu¬ 
sion  is  so  incidental  that  it  is  worth  quoting: 
“Salute  Andronicus  and  Junias,  my  kinsmen  and 
my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the 
apostles,  who  also  have  been  in  Christ  before  me.  ’  ’ 
Yet  they  were  all  agreed  on  the  subject  of  the 
resurrection.  St.  Paul  believed  it  from  the  time 
of  his  conversion,  i.  e.^  within  less  than  ten  years 
after  the  date  of  the  crucifixion.  Andronicus  and 
Junias  believed  it  still  earlier.  Peter,  James,  and 
John  also  believed  it  from  the  first;  for  St.  Paul 
tells  us  that  he  communicated  to  them  the  gospel 
which  he  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  and  that 


IQO  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE:  OE  THE 

they  generally  approved  of  it;  and  he  informs  us, 
in  the  fifteenth  of  First  Corinthians,  that  both 
Peter  and  James  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  alive  after 
his  crucifixion.  The  reader’s  attention  should  be 
particularly  directed  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Epis¬ 
tle  to  the  Galatians  he  informs  us  that,  three  years 
after  his  conversion,  he  paid  Peter  a  visit  of  fif¬ 
teen  days,  during  which  he  was  entertained  by 
him,  and  that  during  this  visit  he  had  an  inter¬ 
view  with  James.  As  it  is  incredible  that  they 
did  not  explain  their  views  to  one  another  respect¬ 
ing  this  fundamental  fact  of  Christianity,  we  can¬ 
not  therefore  err  in  assuming  that  we  have  here 
the  direct  testimony  of  these  two  men  that  they 
believed  they  had  seen  their  Master  risen  again 
from  the  dead.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  their 
belief  in  the  resurrection  was  the  foundation  on 
which  the  church  was  reconstructed  immediately 
after  the  crucifixion. 

8.  In  the  fifteenth  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  St.  Paul  makes  a  very  definite  state¬ 
ment  as  to  a  number  of  persons  who  believed 
that  they  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  after  he  had  risen 
from  the  dead.  He  tells  us  that  on  one  occasion 
He  was  so  seen  by  more  than  five  hundred  persons 
at  once,  of  whom  more  than  half  were  still  alive 
when  he  wrote  the  Epistle.  Now,  consider  how, 
in  making  this  assertion,  he  must  have  put  him- 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  191 

self  in  the  hands  of  his  opponents,  if  this  fact  was 
not  generally  admitted  to  be  true.  They  might 
have  put  an  end  to  his  reasonings  then  and  there 
by  simply  exposing  the  falsehood  of  such  a  state¬ 
ment.  The  attempt  of  unbelievers  to  escape  the 
force  of  this  fact  by  the  allegation  that  the  apos¬ 
tle  was  careless  of  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  such 
stories  is  here  quite  beyond  the  mark,  for  they 
forget  that  it  was  made  in  the  presence  of  those 
who  would  have  been  only  too  eager  to  expose 
his  misstatements  if  they  had  been  able.  But  if 
these  five  hundred  persons  really  believed  that 
they  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  after  his  crucifixion, 
how  is  it  possible  to  account  for  so  singular  a  fact 
otherwise  than  on  the  assumption  of  its  truth  ? 

9.  But  further:  there  were  members  of  the 
Corinthian  Church  who  were  far  from  being  dis¬ 
posed  to  accept  with  eager  credulity  the  story  of 
a  resurrection  from  the  dead;  many  who  affirmed 
that  a  resurrection  of  the  body  was,  if  not  impos¬ 
sible,  yet  a  most  undesirable  event,  and  that  all 
that  was  intended  by  the  promise  of  a  resurrec¬ 
tion  was  a  great  spiritual  change.  Yet,  with 
singularly  defective  logic,  they  admitted  that  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  had  been  a  bodily  one. 
I  Cor.  15:14-17.  The  apostle  presses  them  with 
the  following  reasoning,  to  which  I  invite  the 
reader’s  attention:  How  can  you  deny  a  bodily 


192  HISTORICAI.  EVIDENCE  OE  THE 

resurrection  hereafter,  when  you  admit  that  Christ 
actually  rose  from  the  dead  ?  If  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  had  not  been  the  foundation  of  the  faith 
of  the  church,  they  might  have  made  short  work 
of  the  apostle  and  his  logic,  by  simply  denying 
the  truth  of  the  bodily  resurrection  of  our  I^ord. 

THE  POINTS  PROVED. 

I  have  therefore  proved,  on  the  most  unim¬ 
peachable  historical  evidence,  that  there  is  at 
least  one  miracle  recorded  in  the  Gospels  which  is 
neither  a  myth,  a  legend,  nor  even  a  mental  hal¬ 
lucination  which  slowly  grew  during  the  latter 
half  of  the  first  century,  but  that  it  was  fully 
believed  in  as  a  fact  by  those  who  gave  the  new 
impulse  to  the  Christian  church  immediately  after 
the  crucifixion  of  its  Founder,  and  that  it  formed 
the  one  sole  ground  of  its  renewed  life.  Let  it 
be  observed  that  I  have  foreborne  to  quote  the 
testimony  of  the  Gospels,  because  unbelievers 
affirm  that  their  date  is  comparatively  late.  I 
have,  therefore,  simply  made  use  of  historical 
documents,  the  genuineness  of  which  they  do  not 
dispute.  It  remains,  therefore,  to  inquire  wheth¬ 
er  it  is  possible  that  this  belief  could  have  been 
the  result  of  some  species  of  mental  hallucination 
on  the  part  of  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus,  for 
this  is  the  only  possible  alternative  to  its  histori- 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  I93 


cal  reality.  But  before  doing  so,  let  me  briefly 
set  before  the  reader  the  points  which  have  been 
proved  on  historical  evidence  of  the  highest  order. 

I.  That  within  less  than  twenty-eight  years 
after  the  crucifixion  the  entire  Christian  church, 
without  distinction  of  party,  believed  that  the 
one  sole  ground  of  its  existence  was  the  fact  that 


Jesus  Christ  had  risen  from  the  dead. 

2.  That  at  that  period  there  were  more  than 
two  hundred  and  fifty  persons  then  living  who 
believed  that  they  had  seen  him  alive  after  his 
crucifixion. 

3.  That  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  was  held 
in  common  by  St.  Paul  and  his  most  violent  op¬ 
ponents. 

4.  That  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the 
entire  Christian  church  believed  in  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  its  Founder,  as  an  essential  ground  of  its 
existence,  within  six  or  seven  years  after  the  date 
of  his  crucifixion. 

5.  That  at  least  three  of  the  original  apostles 
asserted  that  they  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  alive 
after  his  death. 

6.  That  within  a  few  months  after  the  crucifix¬ 
ion  the  church  must  have  been  reconstructed  on 
the  foundation  of  the  belief  that  its  crucified  Mes¬ 
siah  had  been  raised  from  the  dead.  I  say  a  few 
months,  because  if  the  inter v^al  had  been  lonefer 

13 


194  HISTORICAI.  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 

while  the  belief  was  growing,  the  church  must 
have  perished  in  its  Founder’s  grave. 

three  supposabee  aeternatives. 

Such  being  the  facts  of  which  the  historical 
evidence  is  unquestionable,  it  remains  for  me  to 
examine  whether  they  are  consistent  with  any 
other  assumption  than  that  the  belief  in  the  res¬ 
urrection  was  founded  on  a  reality. 

Fet  the  reader  therefore  observe  that  there  are 
only  three  possible  alternatives  before  us.' 

1.  Either  Jesus  Christ  actually  rose  from  the 
dead ; 

2.  Or  the  belief  in  his  resurrection  was  the  re¬ 
sult  of  a  deliberately  concocted  fraud; 

3.  Or  the  original  followers  of  Jesus  were  the 
victims  of  some  species  of  mental  hallucination. 

Other  alternative  there  is  none. 

It  will  be  unnecessary  to  examine  the  second 
of  these  alternatives,  because  it  has  been  aban¬ 
doned  by  all  eminent  modern  unbelievers. 

MENTAE  HAEEUCINATION  :  TWO  THEORIES. 

Two  theories  have  been  propounded  as  afford¬ 
ing  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the  belief 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  on  the  assumption 
that  it  was  due  to  the  mental  hallucination  of  his 
disciples.  Of  these  the  first  is: 


resurrection  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  I95 

That  they  were  so  intensely  enthusiastic  and 
credulous  that  some  one  or  more  of  them  fancied 
that  they  saw  Jesus  alive  after  his  crucifixion,  and 
that  they  succeeded  in  persuading  the  others  that 
it  was  a  fact.  This  theory  is  technically  called 
the  theory  of  Visions.  It  has  been  propounded  in 
many  forms,  but  that  of  Renan  may  be  cited  as  a 
fair  illustration  of  it:  that  Mary  Magdalene,  in  the 
midst  of  her  grief  and  emotion,  mistook  the  gar¬ 
dener  for  Jesus,  fancied  that  he  was  risen  from  the 
dead,  and  communicated  her  enthusiasm  to  the 
rest. 

The  second  is,  that  Jesus  did  not  really  die  of 
the  effects  of  crucifixion,  but  that  he  was  taken 
down  from  the  cross  in  a  swoon,  from  which  he 
awoke  in  the  sepulchre ;  that  he  succeeded  in 
creeping  out  of  it  in  an  exhausted  state,  in  get¬ 
ting  to  a  place  of  retirement,  and  died  shortly  af¬ 
terwards  ;  and  that  his  credulous  followers  mis¬ 
took  this  partial  recovery  for  a  resurrection  from 
the  dead. 

I  must  ask  the  reader  to  observe,  that  to  im¬ 
part  to  either  of  these  theories  the  appearance  of 
plausibility,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  a  boundless 
amount  of  credulity,  I  may  say  one  that  surpasses 
belief,  on  the  part  of  the  followers  of  Jesus.  But 
when  we  ask  that  some  proof  should  be  adduced 
of  the  existence  of  this  extreme  credulity,  the  only 


196  HISTORICAI.  evidence:  OE  THE 

one  which  is  forthcoming  is,  that  the  Jews  of  that 
period  were  habitual  believers  in  supernatural 
and  demoniacal  agency. 

I  will  deal  with  the  second  of  these  theories 
first. 

THEORY  THAT  HE  DID  NOT  DIE. 

I  allow  that  it  was  possible  for  a  man  who  had 
been  suspended  for  some  time  on  the  cross,  if  ta¬ 
ken  down  and  carefully  treated,  to  recover.  This, 
we  are  informed  by  Josephus,  happened  to  one  of 
his  friends,  though  it  was  the  exception,  for  two 
out  of  three  died  under  care.  But  in  the  case  of 
Jesus,  unbelievers  must  meet  the  fact  that  he  was 
in  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  who,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  would  have  seen  to  his  burial  as  a  crimi¬ 
nal  who  had  been  publicly  executed,  and  have 
thus  put  the  possibility  of  his  recovery  in  his 
grave  out  of  the  question.  It  is  true  that  our 
Gospels  inform  us  that  Pilate  surrendered  his 
body  to  his  friends ;  our  sole  knowledge  of  this 
fact  is  derived  from  their  testimony,  but  unbv,- 
lievers  affirm  that  they  are  unhistorical,  and  they 
cannot  therefore  in  this  particular  case  claim  the 
benefit  of  it.  If,  however,  they  accept  the  state¬ 
ments  of  the  Gospels  on  this  point  they  are  bound 
also  to  accept  their  further  assertion,  that  Pilate 
took  care  to  ascertain  that  Jesus  had  actually  died 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  I97 

before  he  resigned  possession  of  the  body ;  and 
that  it  was  afterwards  consigned  to  a  sepulchre, 
the  entrance  of  which  was  closed  with  a  large 
stone.  But  those  who  propound  the  above  theory 
cannot  help  admitting  that  a  sepulchre  hewn  in  a 
rock  was  a  most  unlikely  place  for  a  man  who  had 
been  crucified  to  recover  from  a  swoon  which 
could  be  mistaken  for  death;  but  even  if  this  is 
conceded  to  be  a  possibility,  they  are  met  with 
the  insuperable  difficulty  of  a  man  in  this  wound¬ 
ed  and  exhausted  condition  being  able  to  get  out 
of  a  place,  the  doorway  of  which  was  closed  by  a 
large  stone,  and  then  succeeding  in  taking  refuge 
in  the  house  of  a  friend,  and  there  hiding  himself 
from  the  eyes  of  his  inveterate  foes. 

But  as  after  the  crucifixion  Jesus  disappears 
from  history,  except  on  the  supposition  that  he 
rose  from  the  dead,  unbelievers  are  obliged  to  ad¬ 
mit  that  he  must  have  died  from  exhaustion 
shortly  afterwards.  Now  it  is  certain  that  if  he 
left  the  grave  alive  he  must  have  been  kept  in 
the  closest  concealment;  for  if  those  who  had  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  procuring  his  crucifixion  had  the  remo¬ 
test  suspicion  that  he  had  done  so  they  would  not 
have  allowed  him  to  remain  undisturbed,  and 
consequently  his  disciples  could  not  have  ven¬ 
tured  to  have  breathed  a  single  word  about  a  res¬ 
urrection  until  they  had  succeeded  in  conveying 


198  HISTORICAI.  EVIDENCK  OF  THE 

him  to  some  distant  place  of  safety.  This,  as  all 
practical  men  know,  would  have  involved  insu¬ 
perable  difficulties;  and  in  this  case  one  or  more 
of  the  followers  of  Jesus  must  have  been  guilty  of 
a  conscious  fraud. 

But  further.  It  is  also  evident  that  if  Jesus 
lived  in  concealment,  his  followers  either  had 
access  to  him  or  they  had  not.  If  the  former  was 
the  case,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  them 
to  have  mistaken  a  wounded  man’s  gradual  re¬ 
covery,  for  a  resurrection;  or  one  dying  from  ex¬ 
haustion,  for  the  Messiah  of  Jewish  expectations. 
But  if  they  never  saw  him,  the  idea  that  they 
should  have  believed  that  he  was  risen  from  the 
dead,  and  on  the  strength  of  that  belief  should 
have  proceeded  to  reconstruct  the  church  on  the 
basis  of  his  resurrection,  and  that  they  should 
have  succeeded  in  accomplishing  it,  is  far  more 
incredible  than  the  belief  that  all  the  miracles  re¬ 
corded  in  the  Bible  were  actual  occurrences. 

But  a  Messiah  who  crept  out  of  his  grave, 
took  refuge  in  retirement,  and  afterwards  died 
from  exhaustion,  was  not  one  who  could  satisfy 
the  requirements  of  the  community,  which  had 
been  crushed  by  his  crucifixion.  His  followers 
had  fully  expected  that  he  was  going  speedily  to 
reign,  and  lo,  the  cross  was  his  only  throne,  and 
all  expectations  of  a  visible  reign  must  have  been 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  199 

crushed.  Yet  it  is  the  most  certain  of  historical 
facts  that  the  Christian  community  commenced 
a  new  life  immediately  after  its  original  ground¬ 
work,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  of  popular  Jew¬ 
ish  expectation,  had  been  subverted  by  his  cruci¬ 
fixion.  Nothing  but  a  resurrection,  or  something 
which  could  be  mistaken  for  it,  could  have  served 
the  purpose.  Something  must  be  done,  and  that 
quickly,  or  the  church  must  have  perished  in  its 
Founder’s  grave.  It  was  necessary,  therefore, 
that  the  old  Messianic  idea  should  be  immediately 
reconstructed,  if  the  instant  dissolution  of  the 
church  was  to  be  averted.  The  church  had  before 
it  the  alternative  of  finding  a  Messiah  on  a  new 
basis,  or  perishing.  If  it  be  urged  that  Jesus  re¬ 
covered  from  the  effects  of  his  crucifixion,  and 
lived  in  retirement  ever  afterwards,  and  that  his 
disciples  mistook  this  for  a  resurrection,  I  ask  in 
the  name  of  common  sense,  even  if  it  is  conceiv¬ 
able  that  there  was  a  single  disciple  capable  of 
such  credulity,  how  long  would  such  a  belief  take 
in  growing,  so  as  to  be  accepted  by  the  entire 
body,  and  to  be  embraced  by  them  with  such 
ardor  as  to  cause  them  to  proceed  to  the  work  of 
reconstructing  the  church  on  its  basis?  The 
truth  is,  that  the  requisite  time  is  not  to  be  had 
for  the  growth  of  such  a  delusion,  for  while  the 
belief  was  growing,  the  church  would  have  be- 


200 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OE  THE 


come  extinct  from  want  of  any  bond  to  keep  it 
united.  Is  it  credible,  I  ask,  that  any  body  of 
disciples  could  have  been  induced  to  believe  that 
their  Master  was  risen  from  the  dead,  without 
being  favored  with  an  interview  with  him  ?  and 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  while  he  continued  to 
live  in  retirement  in  order  that  he  might  keep 
himself  in  safety  from  his  enemies  ?  or  that  they 
would  have  ventured  to  proceed  to  the  work  of 
reconstructing  the  church  on  the  basis  of  his  spir¬ 
itual  Messiahship,  knowing  well  the  opposition 
they  were  certain  to  encounter,  unless  they  had 
been  persuaded  that  they  had  received  their  Mas¬ 
ter’s  direct  instructions  to  do  so,  and  that  he  was 
able  to  impart  to  the  attempt  the  probability  of 
success  ?  Credulity,  however  great,  certainly  has 
its  limits,  and  such  credulity  as  has  been  presup¬ 
posed  exceeds  the  limits  of  the  possible.  But 
besides  all  this,  the  theory  cannot  be  made  to 
bear  the  least  appearance  of  plausibility,  without 
assuming  either  the  incredible  fact  that  Jesus 
must  have  mistaken  his  partial  recovery  for  a 
resurrection,  or  the  alternative  that  he  lent  him¬ 
self  to  the  perpetration  of  a  conscious  fraud,  with 
which  not  even  unbelievers  have  actually  dared, 
except  by  insinuation,  to  charge  the  Holy  One  of 
God. 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST. 


201 


THEORY  OE  VISIONS. 

Let  US  now  proceed  to  consider  the  remaining 
alternative,  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  was 
due  to  the  followers  of  Jesus  having,  under  the 
influence  of  mental  hallucinations,  mistaken  cer¬ 
tain  visionary  appearances,  the  creations  of  their 
overwrought  imaginations,  for  objective  realities; 
and  in  consequence  of  this  that  they  became  firmly 
persuaded  that  they  had  seen  and  conversed  with 
him  after  he  had  risen  from  the  dead.  Before 
doing  so,  however,  let  me  draw  the  reader’s  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  all-important  fact  which  is  so  habit¬ 
ually  overlooked  in  this  argument,  that  the  his¬ 
torical  condition  of  the  case  requires  that  those  who 
propound  this  theory^  as  affordhtg  an  adequate  ac~ 
connt  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection^ 
should  not  only  account  for  the  origin  of  this  belief  as 
a  mere  beliefs  but  for  the  erection  of  the  cJmrch  on  its 
basis.  It  is  impossible  too  strongly  to  press  this 
last  part  on  the  attention  of  unbelievers. 

Let  us  however  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argu¬ 
ment,  that  the  original  followers  of  Jesus  were  to 
the  last  degree  credulous  and  enthusiastic,  only 
observing  that  we  have  not  one  atom  of  evidence 
for  the  assumption.  I  am  fully  ready  to  concede 
that  a  belief  in  a  certain  round  of  supernaturalism 
is  one  which  is  very  widely  diffused  among  man- 


202 


HISTORICAIv  evidence:  OF  THE 


kind,  and  that  large  numbers  of  marvellous  stories 
are  readily  accepted  on  little  or  no  evidence.  It 
is  comparatively  easy  to  get  men  to  believe  that 
they  have  seen  ghosts,  and  still  easier  to  believe 
that  others  have  seen  them.  But  there  is  one 
marvel  at  which  the  most  profound  credulity 
stumbles,  viz.^  that  a  man  who  has  actually  died 
has  been  seen  alive  and  conversed  with  in  bodily 
reality.  I  doubt  whether  an  authentic  instance 
can  be  found  of  any  one  who  has  positively  af¬ 
firmed  that  he  has  seen  and  conversed  with  another 
after  he  was  dead,  not  as  spirit,  but  in  bodily 
reality.  The  old  pagans,  who  accepted  super¬ 
naturalism  enough,  would  have  scoffed  at  such  a 
belief  as  lying  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  possible; 
and  would  have  pronounced  any  one  mad  who  had 
affirmed  that  he  had  done  so.  I  am  aware  that 
there  are  a  few  old  pagan  stories  about  men  who 
had  been  brought  back  from  the  other  world;  but 
these  were  wisely  placed  by  the  poets  in  the  re¬ 
motest  ages  of  the  past.  But  in  the  present  case 
history  refuses  to  allow  of  any  sufficient  time  for 
the  story  of  a  resurrection  to  have  grown  up  in 
this  gradual  manner  under  shelter  of  the  remote 
past. 

What  then  is  the  fact  with  which  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  case  those  who  deny  the  reality  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  must  inevitably  grapple  ?  It  is  none  other 


resurrection  of  JESUS  CHRIST.  203 

than  this,  that  several  persons  must  have  believed 
that  they  saw  the  risen  Jesus  within  a  few  days  or 
weeks  after  his  crucifixion,  and  what  is  more, 
conversed  with  him  separately  and  in  companies. 

Let  the  reader  imagine  for  himself  the  amount 
of  credulity  which  would  be  necessary  to  enable 
a  number  of  men  and  women  to  believe  that  they 
had  not  only  seen  and  conversed  with  one  who 
had  been  publicly  executed  at  Newgate,  and 
whose  body  was  still  close  at  hand  mouldering  in 
its  grave,  but  who  actually  proceeded  to  found  a 
society  on  the  basis  of  that  belief,  and  that  society 
the  greatest,  the  holiest,  and  the  most  mightily 
influential  of  all  the  institutions  that  have  existed 
on  this  earth;  and  what  is  more,  that  they  could 
actually  succeed  in  the  attempt. 

three  conditions  of  haeeucinations. 

Three  conditions  have  been  laid  down,  by 
those  who  have  deeply  studied  the  human  mind, 
as  necessary  for  the  production  of  those  mental 
hallucinations  which  have  resulted  in  causing 
subjective  impressions  to  be  mistaken  for  external 
realities.  These  are  prepossession^  fixed  idea^  and 
expectancy.  Now,  nothing  can  be  more  certain 
than  that,  in  the  case  of  our  Lord’s  disciples, 
these  three  principles,  supposing  them  to  have 
been  existent  in  them,  would  have  acted  in  a 


204  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OP  THE 

direction  exactly  contrary  to  that  which  those 
who  propound  this  theory  as  an  adequate  account 
of  the  facts  above  referred  to  require. 

1.  Their  prepossessions  were  all  in  favor  of 
a  Messiah  visibly  ruling  and  reigning,  and  most 
adverse  to  the  idea  of  a  crucified  one.  The  very 
idea  of  a  crucifixion  dashed  in  pieces  their  dearest 
hopes.  Their  prepossessions  therefore  ran  directly 
counter  to  what  this  theory  requires  that  they 
should  have  been  to  have  produced  the  requisite 
mental  hallucinations. 

2.  Such  fixed  ideas  as  they  possessed,  instead 
-of  producing  a  visionary  set  of  instructions  from 
their  risen  Master,  to  reconstruct  the  church  on 
the  basis  of  his  spiritual  Messiahship,  would  have 
infallibly  led  them  to  see  visions  in  conformi¬ 
ty  with  the  old  Jewish  Messianic  conception.  If 
a  fixed  idea  ever  produces  visions  in  credulous 
minds,  these  visions  will  certainly  be  on  the  lines 
of  their  old  ideas,  and  will  not  generate  new  ones. 
Nothing  can  be  conceived  of  as  less  revolutionary 
than  “fixed  ideas,”  and  therefore  they  will  not 
aid  us  one  single  step  towards  the  generation  of 
the  idea  of  a  spiritual  Messiahship,  or  to  the  re¬ 
construction  of  the  church  on  its  basis. 

3.  Of  expectancy  of  a  resurrection,  the  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Jesus  certainly  had  none.  The  only 
possible  ground  for  supposing  that  they  had  any 


RESURRECTION  OE  JESUS  CHRIST.  205 

would  be  the  assumption  that  our  Lord  had  pre¬ 
dicted  the  event  in  the  most  express  terms.  But 
this  unbelievers  do  not  venture  to  affirm,  for  to 
admit  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  their  position. 
Some  mere  general  utterance,  such  as  that  if  he 
was  martyred  he  would  live  again  in  the  future 
success  of  his  cause,  is  one  far  too  general  to  pro¬ 
duce  that  enthusiastic  state  of  expectancy  which 
would  be  necessary  to  create  such  visions  of  him 
risen  from  the  dead  as  could  be  mistaken  for 
objective  realities,  it  being  remembered  that 
all  the  while  his  dead  body  must  have  been  at 
hand  in  the  grave  in  the  custody  of  either  his* 
friends  or  his  foes. 

Hopeless,  therefore,  is  the  attempt  to  produce 
the  requisite  visions  by  the  aid  of  either  of  these 
three  principles. 

It  is  easy  for  a  student  in  his  closet  to  invent 
the  theory  that  Mary  Magdalene,  in  the  midst  of 
her  grief  and  dejection,  mistook  the  gardener  for 
Jesus,  thought  that  He  was  risen  from  the  dead, 
and  communicated  her  enthusiasm  to  the  rest; 
but  those  who  have  practical  experience  of  the 
realities  of  things  will  be  confident  that  this  is 
much  easier  to  say  than  to  do.  What !  are  we 
to  be  asked  to  believe  that  an  enthusiastic  woman 
succeeded  in  persuading  a  number  of  others  that 
a  person  who  had  been  executed  only  a  few  days 


2o6  historical  evidence  of  the 

previously,  and  wliose  body  was  close  by  in  the 
grave,  bad  appeared  to  ber  in  bodily  reality,  and 
that  they  therefore  accepted  tbe  fact,  that  be  was 
risen  from  tbe  dead,  without  further  inquiry? 
Did  they  do  so,  I  ask,  without  being  favored 
with  a  sight  of  him  themselves;  or  did  they  all, 
in  the  height  of  their  credulous  enthusiasm,  take 
to  seeing  visions  of  the  risen  Jesus,  and  mistake 
them  for  objective  realities,  when  all  this  while 
the  body  was  close  at  hand  in  the  sepulchre? 
What  next  are  we  to  be  invited  to  believe  in  the 
name  of  philosophic  history  ? 

Further.  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  his  disci¬ 
ples  without  authority  from  him  ventured  to  pro¬ 
ceed  to  reconstruct  the  church  on  the  basis  of  a 
spiritual  and  invisible  Messiah  in  the  place  of  a 
temporal  and  visible  one,  to  make  his  person  the 
centre  of  the  life  of  the  new  system,  and  to  lay 
the  foundations  of  a  universal  church  in  place 
of  the  old  theocracy?  This  brings  us  into  im¬ 
mediate  contact  with  the  whole  mass  of  insupera¬ 
ble  difficulties  with  which  the  theory  of  visions 
is  attended. 

I  must  once  more  draw  attention  to  the  fact, 
that  it  is  necessary  that  those  who  affirm  that  the 
belief  in  his  resurrection  was  the  result  of  a  men¬ 
tal  hallucination  on  the  part  of  the  followers  of 
Jesus  should  account  not  only  for  that  belief, 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  ZO’] 

but  for  the  erection  of  the  church  on  the  new 
basis  of  a  spiritual  instead  of  a  temporal  Messiah, 
and  the  other  all-important  changes  in  the  entire 
movement  which  resulted  from  this  change  of 
front.  I  know  that  it  will  be  urged  that  his 
credulous  followers  fancied  that,  although  his 
body  still  continued  in  the  hands  of  either  his 
friends  or  his  foes,  he  had  been  taken  up  into 
heaven,  from  whence  he  would  come  again  after 
a  short  interval  in  his  visible  Messianic  glory. 
But  the  church  had  in  the  meantime  to  be  kept 
together,  and  this  could  only  be  done  by  recon¬ 
structing  the  Messianic  conception  on  which  it 
has  been  based.  However,  days,  months,  and 
years  elapsed,  and  no  return  of  Jesus  took  place. 
A  thorough  reconstruction  of  the  entire  basis  of 
the  original  society  became  therefore  more  and 
more  urgently  necessary,  if  utter  extinction  was 
to  be  avoided.  But  it  is  an  unquestionable  his¬ 
toric  fact  that,  instead  of  dwindling  away,  it  grew 
and  flourished  immediately  after  its  Founder’s 
death.  The  reconstruction  in  question  therefore 
must  have  been  actually  effected  immediately 
afterwards.  Are  we  to  believe  that  the  disciples 
would  have  ventured  on  such  a  step,  unless  they 
had  been  firmly  persuaded  that  they  had  received 
definite  instructions  from  their  Master  to  make 
the  transformation?  or  that  a  body  of  ignorant 


2o8  historicai.  evidence  of  the 

fanatics,  such  as  is  supposed,  had  wit  enough  to 
invent  the  mighty  change  which  has  resulted  in 
the  erection  of  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
the  influences  which  from  thence  have  issued  on 
the  world  ? 

Let  us  return  to  the  theory  of  visions.  What 
then  are  we  to  be  asked  to  believe  ?  In  place  of 
the  acceptance  of  the  resurrection  as  a  fact^ — a  fact, 
be  it  observed,  adequate  to  explain  all  the  subse¬ 
quent  phenomena  of  the  history  of  the  church — we 
are  invited  to  believe  that  the  belief  in  it  origina¬ 
ted  in  the  followers  of  Jesus  seeing  visions  of  their 
Master  after  his  crucifixion,  and  mistaking  them 
for  realities.  In  that  case  thev  must  have  seen 
not  07te  vision^  but  several ;  not  only  singly  and 
m  solitude^  but  in  bodies.  St.  Paul’s  testimony 
on  this  point  is  express,  and  his  means  of  infor¬ 
mation  must  have  been  ample.  Will  any  one, 
with  his  Epistles  in  hand,  venture  to  affirm  that 
he  wrote  what  he  knew  to  be  an  invention  of  his 
own  ?  He  tells  us  that  he  had  private  interviews 
with  Peter  and  James,  and  also  that  both  these 
apostles  believed  that  they  had  private  interviews 
with  the  risen  Jesus.  Is  it  credible  that  he  did 
not  get  this  information  from  them,  when  he 
actually  abode  for  a  fortnight  in  Peter’s  house, 
and  had  a  personal  interview  with  James?  He 
also  tells  us  that  on  another  occasion  he  had  an 


resurrection  of  JESUS  CHRIST.  209 

interview  with  at  least  one  more  of  the  original 
apostolic  body,  John;  and  he  gives  us  the  further 
information  that  the  eleven  apostles,  when  assem¬ 
bled  together  in  a  body,  believed  that  on  two 
separate  occasions  they  had  interviews  with  their 
risen  Master.  He  also  tells  us  that,  on  anoth¬ 
er  occasion.  He  appeared  to  no  less  than  five 
hundred  in  a  body.  Were  all  these  visionary 
appearances  ?  Did  all  the  disciples  take  to  seeing 
visions  together,  and  to  mistaking  them  for  reali¬ 
ties?  When  they  thus  imagined  that  they  saw 
their  Master  singly  and  in  bodies,  did  not  one  of 
them  ask  him  a  question ;  and  if  so,  did  he  get  a 
visionary  answer?  Is  it  credible,  I  ask,  that  cir¬ 
cumstanced  as  they  were,  they  did  not  ask  him 
what  future  course  he  was  going  to  adopt;  or,  in 
event  of  his  removal,  what  course  it  was  his 
pleasure  that  they  should  pursue  with  respect  to 
carrying  on  the  work  which  he  had  begun? 
That  they  should  have  put  to  him  no  questions 
such  as  these  is  simply  incredible.  To  such 
questions  they  either  got  answers  or  they  did 
not.  If  they  got  none,  the  bubble  must  have 
burst  then  and  there.  If  they  believed  that  they 
got  answers,  they  must  have  been  all  visionary 
ones;  and  this  must  have  involved  a  whole  set 
of  visionary  conversations. 

The  fact  that  the  church  was  reconstructed 

14 


210  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OE  THE 

shortly  after  the  crucifixion  renders  it  absolutely 
certain  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  must  have  be¬ 
lieved  that  they  had  conversations  with  their  risen 
Master,  and  that  in  these  conversations  he  gave 
them  his  directions  both  to  reconstruct  the  church 
and  as  to  the  mode  in  which  they  were  to  do  so; 
for,  as  I  have  said,  unless  they  had  believed  that 
they  had  received  such  instructions,  it  is  simply 
incredible  that  they  should  have  ventured  on  the 
attempt,  and  have  dared  to  refound  the  church 
on  the  basis  of  his  resurrection  and  spiritual  Mes- 
siahship,  and  that  too  in  the  face  of  all  the  op¬ 
position  they  were  certain  to  encounter.  But  if 
their  belief  in  his  resurrection  was  the  result  of 
an  hallucination,  then  the  instructions  which 
they  believed  that  they  had  received,  and  on  which 
they  successfully  acted,  must  have  been  mere 
visions,  the  creation  of  their  disordered  imagina¬ 
tions.  What  is  more,  they  must  have  all  fancied 
that  they  heard  similar  utterances,  or  else  there 
would  have  been  a  diversity  of  plans. 

To  enable  us  to  accept  theories  like  these  as 
accounts  of  actual  facts,  requires  on  our  part  more 
than  all  the  credulity  which  unbelievers  ascribe 
to  our  Lord’s  primitive  followers. 

But  observe  further:  the  belief  in  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  was  no  idle  belief,  like  that  of  a  common 
ghost  story  or  an  ordinary  marvel.  Such  beliefs 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  211 

begin  and  end  in  nothing;  but  this  had  an  energy 
and  power  sufficient  to  reconstruct  the  church  in 
the  face  of  the  greatest  difficulties  and  perils.  It 
was  therefore  no  sentimental  belief  entertained  by 
individuals  who  did  nothing  in  consequence  of  it, 
but  one  which  sustained  the  weight  of  an  institu¬ 
tion  which  has  endured  for  eighteen  centuries  of 
time,  and  has  acted  more  powerfully  on  mankind 
than  any  other  known  to  history.  This  belief 
went  on  spreading,  until  within  less  than  seventy 
years  it  had  firmly  established  itself  in  all  the 
great  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  had  shown 
itself  capable  of  enduring  the  test  of  martyrdom. 
Where  in  history  can  be  found  an  instance  of  a 
community  which  has  been  founded  on  the  belief 
that  a  man  who  had  been  publicly  executed  rose 
again  from  the  dead,  and  who  was  thus  proved  to 
be  the  King  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Is  it  easy 
to  persuade  numbers  of  men  and  women  to  accept 
so  astounding  a  fact  ?  Where  can  be  found  an 
example  of  a  great  institution  which  has  lasted 
for  centuries,  which  has  wielded  a  greater  influ¬ 
ence  for  good  and  a  mightier  power  over  the 
human  mind  than  all  other  institutions  put  to¬ 
gether,  which  has  been  erected  on  the  foundation 
of  a  number  of  vulgar  marvels  ? 

What,  I  ask,  has  the  whole  mass  of  ghost 
stories,  marvels,  and  current  spiritism  done  to 


21Z 


HISTORICAI^  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 


reform  the  world  ?  We  have  heard  much  in  these 
modern  days  of  spiritualism  and  its  wonders;  has 
there  any  great  institution  been  erected  on  its 
basis,  or  is  there  any  probability  that  there  ever 
will  ?  Are  mankind,  or  any  portion  of  them,  the 
better  or  the  wiser  for  its  disclosures  ?  To  these 
questions  there  can  be  only  one  answer.  Spirit¬ 
ism,  with  all  its  alleged  powers  of  penetrating 
into  the  secrets  of  the  unseen  world,  and  all  simi¬ 
lar  marvels,  have  achieved  nothing;  *they  have 
made  man  neither  holier  nor  wiser;  nay,  they 
have  not  effected  a  discovery  which  has  enlarged 
the  knowledge  or  even  made  the  fortune  of  any 
of  its  votaries.  But  respecting  the  gospel  of  the 
resurrection,  the  great  Christian  missionary  could 
write  to  those  who  had  actual  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  in  the  first  of  his  extant  letters,  dating  only 
twenty-three  years  from  the  crucifixion:  “Re¬ 
membering  without  ceasing  your  work  of  faith 
and  labor  of  love  and  patience  of  hope  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  before  our  God  and  Father, .  .  . 
for  our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only, 
but  also  in  power;  .  .  .  and  ye  became  imitators  of 
us,  and  of  the  Lord;  .  .  .  and  how  ye  turned  unto 
God  from  idols,  to  serve  the  living  and  true  God; 
and  to  wait  for  his  Son  from  heaven,  whom.  He 
raised from  the  dead eve7t  Jesus  f  i  Thess.  1:3-10; 
and  as  he  wrote  to  another  body  of  his  converts 


RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  213 

only  four  years  later,  after  lie  had  affirmed  that 
before  becoming  Christians  they  had  been  guilty 
of  some  of  the  foulest  vices  which  can  disgrace 
mankind:  “And  such  were  some  of  you;  but  ye 
were  washed,  but  ye  were  sanctified,  but  ye  were 
justified  in  the  name  of  the  I^ord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
in  the  Spirit  of  our  God.’^  i  Cor.  6:11. 

THE  ONLY  possible  ALTERNATIVE. 

The  first  of  our  three  alternatives  is  therefore 
the  only  possible  one.  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead. 
If  this  was  an  actual  event,  it  satisfies  all  the 
facts  of  history,  and  affords  a  rational  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  church.  No  other  theory  does 
anything  else  but  make  boundless  demands  on 
our  credulity  in  the  name  of  an  unsound  philos- 
ophy. 

THE  gospel’s  true  history. 

I  am  now  in  a  position  to  assign  to  the  Gos¬ 
pels  their  proper  place  as  historical  documents. 
The  above  facts  having  been  proved  on  evidence 
which  is  quite  independent  of  their  testimony,  it 
is  useless  for  unbelievers  to  affirm,  as  far  as  the 
resurrection  is  concerned,  that  they  were  written 
by  nameless  authors  long  after  the  events  which 
they  profess  to  record,  for  the  truth  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  can  be  proved  independently  of  their  tes- 


214  HISTORICAI.  E:viDENC]e  OF  THE 

timony.  If,  therefore,  it  is  a  fact  that  Jesus 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  the  a  priori  presump¬ 
tion  against  their  miraculous  narratives,  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  which  is  the  reason  why  unbelievers 
pronounce  them  unhistorical,  is  destroyed;  nay, 
it  becomes  far  more  probable  that  Jesus  Christ 
wrought  miracles  than  that  he  wrought  none. 
The  Gospels,  therefore,  may  be  accepted  for  what 
they  profess  to  be — memoirs  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  Christ,  composed  by  their  authors' with  the 
design  of  teaching  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Christianity.*  Their  accounts  are  fragmentary, 
but  are  substantial  narratives  of  facts.  They 
were  not  written  for  polemical  purposes,  but  for 
the  edification  of  believers — a  point  which  ought 
to  be  carefully  noted  by  every  student.  It  has 
been  objected  that  their  accounts  contain  narra¬ 
tives  which  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  one 
another  in  minute  details.  I  admit  that  such  is 
the  fact,  and  that  this  results  from  the  peculiar 
class  of  writings  to  which  the  Gospels  belong, 
viz.^  not  regular  histories,  but  religious  memoirs, 
which  class  of  writings  do  not  profess  to  furnish 
us  with  a  complete  and  continuous  narrative. 
The  last  thing  which  occurred  to  their  authors 
was  to  guard  against  the  objections  of  opponents. 
In  their  accounts  of  the  resurrection  they  satisfy 
See  the  preface  to  St.  Luke’s  Gospel. 


resurrection  of  JESUS  CHRIST.  215 

all  the  conditions  of  the  case.  The  events  of  that 
Passover  Sunday  must  have  thrown  the  followers 
of  Jesus  into  the  greatest  excitement.  The  ac¬ 
counts  of  them  given  in  the  first  three  Gospels 
are  exactly  such  as  we  should  expect  from  men 
and  women  under  similar  circumstances.  They 
are  broken,  disjointed,  without  any  attempt  being 
made  to  weave  them  into  a  complete  whole,  yet 
in  all  the  main  facts  their  testimony  agrees,  and 
they  are  fully  corroborated  by  the  more  definite 
account  of  an  eye-witness  —  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  This  is  exactly  what  they  should 
be,  if  they  contain  the  reports  of  genuine  wit¬ 
nesses,  and  what  they  certainly  would  not  have 
been  if  they  had  been  written  by  men  acting  in 
mutual  concert  and  with  the  design  of  smoothing 
over  difficulties  or  answering  objections.  Tet  us 
hear  on  this  point  one  of  the  highest  authorities 
of  modern  skepticism.  “It  is  useless,”  says  the 
“Westminster  Review,”  “to  carp  at  small  minor 
details.  All  histories  contain  variations,  or,  if 
you  like  to  call  them,  contradictions  on  minor 
points.  This  has  been  the  case  with  every  his¬ 
tory  that  has  been  written  from  Herodotus  to  Mr. 
Froude.” 

Tet  unbelievers,  therefore,  join  issue  on  the 
main  facts  of  the  Gospel  history,  just  as  they 
would  with  any  secular  history,  and  we  will  meet 


2i6  resurrection  OE  JESUS  CHRIST. 

them.  Above  all,  let  them  not  carp  at  minor 
details  about  miracles;  but  let  them  join  issue  on 
the  truth  or  falsehood  of  that  great  miracle,  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  on  the  truth  of  which 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  staked 
the  existence  of  Christianity;  for  if  its  historical 
foundation  can  be  proved  to  be  baseless,  the 
Christian  church  must  become  a  crumbling  ruin. 
But  if  Jesus  Christ  has  risen  from  the  dead, 
Christianity  must  be  a  divine  revelation,  not¬ 
withstanding  all  the  objections  which  have  been 
urged  against  it  by  unbelievers,  or  any  amount  of 
alleged  discrepancies  with  which  they  charge  the 
narratives  of  the  Gospels. 


Christianity  and  Miracles, 


AT 

THE  PRESENT  DAY. 


BY 

REY.  PRIRCIPAR  CAIRRS.  D.  D., 


AUTHOR  OF 

“unbelief  in  the  eighteenth  century.’^ 


THE  ARGUMENT  IN  BRIEF. 


Miracles  are  shown  to  be,  on  the  supposition  of 
the  existence  of  God,  neither  impossible  in  themselves, 
inconsistent  with  the  order  of  nature,  incapable  of  be¬ 
ing  proved  by  testimony,  nor  incapable  of  being  deci¬ 
sively  connected  with  God. 

The  marvellous  character  of  the  Bible,  the  tran¬ 
scendent  character  of  the  morality  of  the  Bible,  the 
harmony  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  with  its  doctrine, 
are  shown  to  be  presumptions  in  favor  of  the  miracles 
of  Scripture. 

The  historical  testimony  to  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  our  Lord’s  Resurrection,  is 
examined,  and  its  bearing  on  this  fact  is  shown.  The 
Resurrection  of  Christ  is  shown  to  account  for  all  the 
undeniable  facts  of  the  history,  and  the  insufficiency  of 
any  theory  that  denies  its  reality  to  account  for  them 
is  proved. 


Christianity  and  Miracles, 


AT  THE  PRESENT  DAY. 

- » - 

The  alliance  between  Christianity  and  mira¬ 
cles  is  of  long  standing,  in  fact  is  inherited  from 
the  Old  Testament  religion;  and  for  eighteen  cen¬ 
turies,  friend  and  foe  have  been  here  agreed,  the 
one  rallying  to  this  position  as  an  intrenchment 
of  their  own ;  the  other,  though  sometimes  affect¬ 
ing  to  despise  it,  not  less  looking  askance  upon  it 
as  an  adverse  stronghold.  In  our  unsettled  time, 
when  everything  is  questioned,  and  not  a  little 
rashly  abandoned,  the  argument  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity  from  miracles  is  in  some  quarters  less 
insisted  on.  There  are  even  Christian  minds  that 
have  begun  to  waver  at  this  point;  while  others, 
on  the  opposite  side,  are  perhaps  nearer  believing 
their  own  illusive  difficulties  than  at  any  former 
period.  I  am  persuaded,  however,  that  this  dis¬ 
crediting  of  miracles  is  a  great  mistake,  and  that 
no  procedure  could  be  less  wise  than  that  of  wri¬ 
ters  in  the  Christian  ranks  who  seek  here  to 


220  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTKS. 

change  front  in  the  midst  of  action.  Christian¬ 
ity — if  it  be  worth  anything  as  a  remedy — is  so 
essentially  supernatural  in  its  inmost  essence  and 
provisions  that  it  cannot  be  detached  from  mira¬ 
cles  without  losing  its  virtue;  and  though  there 
may  be  shades  and  varieties  as  well  as  improve¬ 
ments,  in  the  way  of  putting  this  argument,  nay, 
lawful  differences  as  to  its  ultimate  value  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  other  grounds  of  Christian  belief^  it  must 
still  take  rank  as  a  leading  proof ;  and  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  not  less  than  the  first,  must  accept 
of  Christ’s  own  challenge,  “  If  I  do  not  the  works 
of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.”  Persuaded  then, 
with  ever-growing  conviction,  of  the  solidity  of 
this  argument,  and  of  the  futility  of  the  objections 
drawn  from  metaphysics,  from  history,  and  from 
science  against  it,  I  shall  endeavor,  within  the 
compass  of  this  tract,  to  set  it  forth  in  the  light  of 
the  present  day. 

It  is  necessary,  in  discussing  this  question,  to 
begin  with  some  definition  of  a  miracle,  so 
as  to  understand  in  what  sense  it  is  here  em¬ 
ployed.  It  may  be  spoken  of  then  as  an  act  of 
God  which  visibly  deviates  from  the  ordinary 
working  of  his  power,  designed,  while  capable  of 
serving  other  uses,  to  authenticate  a  divine  mes¬ 
sage.  This  restricts  the  argument  to  theists. 
Unless  there  be  belief  in  a  God  able  and  willing 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES. 


221 


to  make  and  attest  a  revelation,  the  whole  argu¬ 
ment  from  miracles  is  below  the  horizon.  Had 
Hume  been  more  thorough -going  he  would  have 
taken  his  stand  against  miracles  as  excluded  by 
his  skepticism  as  to  God.  Had  Spinoza  been 
more  open  in  his  earlier  treatise,  he  would  not, 
while  professing  to  believe  in  God,  have  assumed 
that  the  wisdom  of  God  did  not  admit  of  either  a 
revelation  or  such  a  proof  of  it;  for  this  belonged 
to  his  later  pantheism.  And  had  Strauss,  in  our 
own  days,  been  a  more  strict  controversialist,  he 
would  not  have  wasted  so  much  of  his  life  in  crit¬ 
icising  the  discords  of  the  evangelists,  but  would 
have  rested  in  his  fundamental  exclusion  of  God, 
that  made  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity  from 
the  first  incredible  and  subversive  of  reason.  No 
one  has  been  here  more  candid  than  the  late  Mr. 
John  S.  Mill.  He  sees  that  miracles  belong  to, 
and  only  belong  to,  the  supposition  of  theism; 
and  whatever  may  be  thought  of  his  objections  to 
them,  as  not  sufficiently  proved  to  have  existed 
in  God’s  actual  world,  he  deserves  great  credit  for 
having  admitted  that  the  belief  in  miracles  is  per¬ 
fectly  rational  on  the  part  of  a  believer  in  God, 
and  that  it  is  a  question  of  evidence  and  not  of  a 
priori  theory. 

With  this  preliminary  clearing  up  of  the  state, 
and  even  of  the  terms,  of  the  question,  a  number 


222 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 


of  MISTAKES  ABOUT  MIRACLES  that  have  gath¬ 
ered  round  it  fall  away  of  themselves.  Some  of 
these  may  be  briefly  noticed.  The  first  mistake 
is,  that  miracles  are  impossible.  To  this  much  of 
the  skepticism  of  our  time  verges,  even  where  it 
does  not  bluntly  assert  it.  Possibly  this  may  be, 
because  our  belief  has  found  by  experience  that 
it  is  not  safe  to  grant  so  much  as  the  being  of  a 
moral  and  personal  Deity.  Miracles,  of  course, 
fall  with  the  denial  of  the  only  Being  who  can 
exercise  a  moral  government,  who  can,  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  that  government,  make  a  revelation, 
and  who  can  so  work  in  the  physical  world  as  to 
connect  that  revelation  with  his  own  divine 
powder.  It  is  seen  at  once  that  if  God  be  possible, 
miracles  are  possible;  and  that  hence  nothing  can 
preclude  them  but  abstract  atheism,  or  panthe¬ 
ism,  or  such  agnosticism  as  makes  the  knowledge 
of  God  hopeless.  It  is  a  great  consolation  to  the 
Christian  that  his  belief  in  miracles  can  only  be 
uprooted  by  virtual  denial  of  God. 

A  second  mistake,  not  so  extreme,  but  still 
serious,  is,  that  miracles  are  inconsistent  with  the 
order  of  nattire.  In  so  far  as  this  puts  nature  in 
the  place  of  God,  and  keeps  him  bound,  as  nature 
is  without  him  held  to  be,  by  absolutely  invaria¬ 
ble  laws,  this  is  the  same  denial  of  God  that  has 
been  already  considered.  So  far,  however,  as  the 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTEa.  223 

position  taken  is  that  God  has  chosen  to  act  in 
ways  so  invariable  as  to  exclude  miracle,  and  has 
revealed  to  us  that  choice,  the  distinction  thus 
drawn  easily  leads  to  the  discovery  of  the  mis¬ 
take.  There  would  need  to  be  full  and  conclusive 
evidence  that  it  is  God’s  will  and  choice  to  exclude 
miracle  altogether  from  the  realm  of  what  is  called 
nature,  but  which  is  only  to  a  theist  the  field  of 
God’s  own  working.  Is  there,  then,  this  full  and 
conclusive  evidence?  It  cannot  be  by  revelation: 
for  this  would  be  to  bring  in  revelation  to  exclude 
revelation.  It  can  only  be  by  what  is  called  the 
light  of  nature;  and  the  question  recurs.  Does  the 
light  of  nature  absolutely  exclude  any  possible 
deviation  by  God  from  the  wonted  sequences  of 
his  operation  ?  This  would  exclude  every  begin¬ 
ning  and  end  of  the  universe,  and  every  cosmical 
change  that  was  not  in  the  strictest  sense  the 
working  out  of  foregoing  law.  On  what  can  a 
skepticism  so  rigorous  be  based?  It  has  been 
attempted  to  base  it  on  our  primary  belief  in  the 
uniformity  of  nature,  which  is  thus  regarded  as 
the  voice  of  God  to  us  warning  us  against  trust  in 
miracles.  But  is  this  so?  Philosophers  still  dis¬ 
pute  as  to  how  far  the  expectation  of  uniformity 
in  nature  is  a  rational  principle  of  knowledge  or  a 
mere  instinct.  But  one  thing  is  clear,  that  it  can¬ 
not  exclude  the  weighing  of  evidence  for  miracle; 


224  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

otherwise,  the  origin  or  end  of  the  world,  consid¬ 
ered  as  a  scientific  possibility,  would  be  as  sum¬ 
marily  rejected  as  any  hypothesis  confessedly 
against  reason.  Canon  Motley  has  shown  con¬ 
clusively  against  Mr.  Mill  that  the  progress  of 
science  cannot  exclude  belief  in  miracle,  for  the 
very  principle  of  induction  on  which  science 
builds  involves  itself  this  prior  belief  in  the  uni¬ 
formity  of  nature,  which  can  thus  receive  from 
science  no  greater  strength  than  it  has  at  first. 
Nothing  is  more  strange  than  the  language  of 
Mr.  Mill  as  to  the  growing  impossibility  of  belief 
in  miracle  as  science  advances;  for  this  would 
leave  the  belief  a  scientific  one  to  Sir  Isaac  New¬ 
ton,  or  even  to  Hume  and  Gibbon,  and  deny  it 
as  such  to  Professor  Huxley  or  Renan;  not  to 
mention  that  this  assertion  is  entirely  opposed  to 
facts,  as  some  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  science 
are  still  believers  in  miracles;  and  Mr.  Mill  him¬ 
self  finds  a  consolation  in  clinging  to  their  possi¬ 
bility  and  the  supernatural  mission  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  admission  of  miracles  does  not  at  all  depend 
on  a  lax  or  unscientific  conception  of  the  course 
of  nature.  In  fact,  it  can  only  build  on  recog¬ 
nized  natural  laws;  and  the  discernment  of  these, 
and  of  exceptions  to  them,  was  as  possible  in  the 
first  century  as  in  the  nineteenth,  as  the  words  in 
the  gospel  history  indicate:  “  Since  the  world  be- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  225 

gan  was  it  not  heard  that  any  man  opened  the 
eyes  of  one  that  was  born  blind.”  This  limited, 
exceptional,  divinely-regulated  minimum  of  devi¬ 
ation,  which  leaves  nature  and  science  still  stand¬ 
ing  as  before,  is  all  that  Christianity  asks  in  order 
to  start  this  argument,  and  no  principle  of  natural 
belief  can  pronounce  the  postulate  inadmissible. 

Besides,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  while  in 
one  sense  miracles  set  aside  law,  in  another  and 
deeper  sense  they  uphold  it.  The  end  of  miracle, 
through  the  coming  and  works  of  Christ,  is  the 
restoration  of  moral  order.  The  coming  of  Christ 
as  a  sinless  Being  is  a  miracle.  Christianity  is 
not  an  ordinary  history,  or  even  a  great  moral 
system  incorporated  with  the  life  of  its  founder. 
It  is,  if  it  is  anything,  a  system  of  redemption, 
based  on  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
Son  of  God,  and  upon  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  with  a  sequel  of  eternal  results  and  issues, 
greater  through  union  with  Christ  or  separation 
from  him  than  the  ordinary  immortality  with  its 
hopes  and  fears.  This  scheme  is  wrought  out  by 
the  life  and  death,  the  dominion  and  influence, 
the  second  coming  to  judgment,  and  endless  reign 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Now  this  whole  plan  and  system 
transcends  natural  laws,  in  any  common  accepta¬ 
tion  of  the  word.  It  is  believed  to  be  in  harmony 
with  the  highest  laws  of  the  Divine  nature,  and 

15 


226  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

to  be  the  most  glorious  expression  of  them.  But  ‘ 
it  is  born  of  and  lives  by  miracle,  so  that  to  refuse 
faith  in  this  is  to  make  sin  the  order  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.  And  if  Christ  needed  to  displace  physical 
law  in  order  to  vindicate  and  restore  moral  and 
spiritual  law,  the  conception  of  the  universe 
which  would  exclude  this  interference  is  really  a 
materialistic  superstition,  and  so  far  from  exalting 
God  as  the  God  of  order,  it  surrounds  him  and  his 
creatures  with  an  outward  barrier  that  shuts  the 
way  even  to  the  ‘  ‘  tree  of  life.  ”  It  is  by  dwelling 
on  the  order  of  nature  without  that  a  prejudice 
against  miracles  has  been  created.  A  glance  at 
the  disorder  of  nature  within  restores  the  balance; 
and  with  the  need,  recalls  the  probability  of  a 
remedy,  and  of  a  remedy  attended  by  miracle. 

A  third  mistake  as  to  miracles  is,  that  even  if 
wrought^  they  eotild  not  be  proved  by  testimony. 
This  is  the  celebrated  argument  of  Hume,  first 
published  in  a  set  of  his  essays  in  1748,  but  which 
has  not  carried  conviction,  as  he  expected,  and 
has  even  lately  been  declared  by  Mr.  Mill  to  be 
inconclusive.  Mr.  Mill,  in  his  “Essay  on  The¬ 
ism,”  p.  217,  says,  “  It  is  evidently  impossible  to 
maintain  that  if  a  supernatural  fact  really  occurs, 
proof  of  its  occurrence  cannot  be  accessible  to  the 
human  faculties.  The  evidence  of  the  senses 
could  prove  this  as  it  can  prove  other  things.” 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  227 

Hume,  however,  never  looks  the  senses,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  miracles,  in  the  face.  He  dwells 
exclusively  on  testimony,  and  thus  tacitly  leaves 
it  to  be  supposed  that  miracles  are  only  matters 
of  testimony;  and  this  testimony  he  makes  neces¬ 
sarily  fallacious:  for  his  argument  is  that  our  con¬ 
fidence  in  testimony  being  due  entirely  to  experi¬ 
ence,  can  never  warrant  our  believing  any  report¬ 
ed  departure  from  experience.  If  Hume  had  gone 
farther  back,  and  supposed  an  eye-witness  dealing 
with  a  miracle,  he  could  not  have  advised  that 
eye-witness  to  reject  the  miracle  simply  because 
the  testimony  of  others  had  never  reported  any¬ 
thing  like  it;  and  then  that  eye-witness  could  not 
have  been  reasonably  disbelieved  himself,  since 
testimony  could  not  fail  to  convey  what  sense  had 
vouched  for.  Hume,  it  is  true,  could  not  himself 
believe  a  miracle,  because  his  philosophy  left  him 
in  total  doubt  as  to  God.  But  it  was  c  therwise 
with  believers  in  God :  and  his  assault  on  testi¬ 
mony  had  no  value  except  as  resting  on  his  own 
premises.  It  may  be  added  that  there  is  a  shadow 
of  Hume’s  error  in  the  not  uncommon  objection 
to  miracles,  that  they  lose  their  force  with  time, 
and  at  length  vanish  away.  Why  should  this  be 
so  with  miracles  more  than  with  secular  history  ? 
The  death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  is  as  near  to 
us  as  the  assassination  of  J ulius  Caesar.  Tradition 


228  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES. 

loses  its  weight  by  successive  removes,  but  not 
written  history.  Grant  that  the  apostle  John  is 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  his  testimony  is 
as  good  to  us  as  if  we  had  received  it  orally  from 
himself.  There  is  a  signal  absence  of  the  histor¬ 
ical  sense  in  this  objection;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  think  that  a  historian  like  Hume,  if  he  could 
have  granted  miracles  as  once  credible,  would 
have  supposed  them  decaying,  though  this  idea 
only  carries  his  distrust  in  testimony  to  a  more 
paradoxical  extreme. 

The  three  mistakes  as  to  miracles  which  have 
been  considered  are  all  due  to  forgetfulness  of  the 
fact  that  miracle  appeals  to  a  prior  belief  in  God; 
and  they  are  redressed  when  his  agency  and  rela¬ 
tion  to  nature  are  recalled  to  view.  The  same 
thing  holds  true  of  a  fou7'th  mistake,  and  the  last 
which  we  shall  notice,  which  still  exerts  a  dis¬ 
turbing  influence  on  some  judgments :  namely, 
that  miracles  ca^inot  be  so  decisively  connected  zvith 
God  as  to  lend  any  sanction  to  an  alleged  revelation. 
There  is  evidently  no  force  in  the  general  allega¬ 
tion  that  mere  power  can  lend  no  support  to 
teaching :  for  power  is  appealed  to  as  a  link  to 
connect  the  teaching  with  God;  and  if  such  a  con¬ 
nection  be  secured,  its  authority  is  then  bound¬ 
less.  All  ages  have  felt  this,  and  have  reechoed 
the  simple  confession  of  Nicodemus:  “We  know 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACDi:S.  229 

that  Tliou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God :  for  no 
man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest  except 
God  be  with  him.”  But  the  complaint  is  that 
thong'll  the  connection,  if  it  could  be  made  out, 
would  serve  the  end,  the  connection  cannot  be 
decisively  established,  since  works  apparently  mi¬ 
raculous  may  still  be  due  to  ordinary  laws,  and 
not  to  divine  interposition,  or  may  even  (so  it  is 
pleaded  on  Scripture  grounds)  be  wrought  by  evil 
beings.  This  objection  has  often  been  taken,  and 
is  renewed,  among  others,  by  the  author  of  ‘  ‘  Su¬ 
pernatural  Religion.” 

Now  it  may  be  granted  that  at  times  the  de¬ 
fenders  of  revelation  have  undertaken  too  much 
by  speaking  as  if  a  line  could  in  all  cases  be 
drawn  to  mark  off  miracle  from  nature;  whereas 
it  was  enough  to  fix  on  the  leading  miracles  of  the 
Bible  as  decisively  supernatural  in  their  charac¬ 
ter,  since  with  these  alone  was  there  any  concern: 
and  it  may  be  also  admitted  that  Christian  writers 
have  differed  somewhat  in  their  interpretation  of 
those  passages  of  Scripture  which  connect  mira¬ 
cle,  or  the  appearance  of  it,  with  evil  agency. 
Neither  of  these  circumstances,  however,  abates 
the  evidential  value  of  the  Bible  miracles.  They 
still  stand  out  as  sharply  as  ever — distinguished 
from  all  natural  phenomena.  It  is  because  ra¬ 
tionalism  could  not  reduce  them  to  natural  facts 


230  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES. 

that  it  tried  to  make  them  myths.  No  science 
can  ever  reduce  to  its  uniformities  a  fact,  if  fact  it 
be,  like  the  death  of  the  firstborn  in  one  night. 
The  cures  of  our  Lord  seem  still  as  little  like  the 
fruits  of  secret  medical  knowledge  as  in  his  own 
day ;  while  the  most  thorough-going  skepticism 
rejects  most  scornfully  the  theory  that  his  resur¬ 
rection  was  a  mere  natural  recovery  from  an  in- 
completed  death.  There  is  thus  in  the' miracles 
of  the  Bible — abating  some  obscure  instances— a 
broad  stamp  of  distinetion  from  extraordinary, 
though  still  natural  phenomena;  while  there  is  a 
plan,  a  method,  a  reigning  spirit,  which  takes 
them  completely  out  of  the  region  of  the  mere 
random  wonders  and  portents  of  Livy,  or  the 
childish  marvels  of  the  later  ecclesiastical  histo¬ 
rians.  It  may  be  confidently  affirmed  that  if  the 
Bible  miracles  are  not  recognizably  divine,  none 
can  be  so;  and  thus  the  extremely  skeptical  posi¬ 
tion  would  be  reached,  that  a  Being  who  wished 
to  make  a  revelation,  and  sought  to  attest  it  by  a 
seal  which  the  general  sense  of  mankind  has 
connected  with  such  a  communication,  could  not 
thus  stamp  it  by  any  sign  of  distinctive  power. 

Equally  futile  is  the  objection  that  the  alleged 
Bible  miracles  may  be  due  to  evil  agency.  The 
deniers  of  revelation  do  not  themselves  believe  in 
such  agency,  superior  to  human,  yet  adverse  to 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES.  23I 

the  divine:  but  only  bring  it  in  to  perplex  and 
disconcert  Christians.  But  if  they  borrow  this 
Christian  doctrine  to  turn  it  against  its  own  ad¬ 
herents,  they  ought  to  remember  the  limitation 
within  which  it  is  held.  However  Christians 
may  differ  as  to  the  amount  of  confusion  which 
evil  beings  may  be  permitted  to  introduce  by 
working  what  may  be  mistaken  for  miracle,  they 
all  hold  that  under  the  government  of  God  suffi¬ 
cient  light  is  granted  to  make  the  distinction  pos¬ 
sible  to  every  humble  and  candid  mind,  either  by 
the  true  power  which  is  divine  visibly  transcend¬ 
ing  every  other,  or  by  moral  features  in  the  reve¬ 
lation  appealing  to  conscience,  in  a  way  which 
no  pseudo-revelation  can  counterfeit.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  is  thus  not  embarrassed  by  this  arginneiittim 
ad  Iiomhiem^  and  what  is  equally  important  to  the 
validity  of  this  reasoning,  neither  is  the  theist. 

The  theist  to  whom  the  Christian  offers  the 
Bible,  and  with  whom  he  argues  on  the  ground  of 
miracle,  cannot  deny  that  the  supreme  Power  may 
be  able  to  outshine,  even  to  human  eyes,  on  this 
field,  all  rivalry,  and  still  more,  to  interweave  the 
revelation  professedly  given  with  such  moral  fea¬ 
tures  and  accompaniments  that  no  fair  observer 
can  trace  it  up  to  an  evil  source.  The  reasoning 
of  our  IvOrd  with  the  Pharisees,  that  Satan  could 
not  cast  out  Satan,  was,  no  doubt,  addressed  to 


233  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES. 

believers  in  revelation;  but  it  is  equally  applicable 
to  believers  in  God  simply,  who  as  such  cannot 
believe  in  him  without  believing  that  all  agencies 
and  events  are  under  his  control,  and  that  he  will 
not  suffer  the  elements  of  nature  to  be  so  turned 
out  of  their  course  by  evil  beings  as  to  mimic  any 
supposed  signature  of  God  or  defeat  his  purpose — 
if  he  has  one — thus  to  confirm  a  revelation.  Who 
ever  heard  of  any  theist  who  was  prepared  to  say, 
“I  admit  an  element  of  miracle,  so  far  as  God’s 
working,  otherwise  known  to  us,  is  concerned.  I 
allow  the  credibility  of  miracles  in  the  abstract, 
and  I  allow  the  moral  features  of  the  Bible  to  be 
reconcilable  with  a  divine  origin;  but  I  cannot 
decide  that  they  have  one,  because  the  apparent 
signs  may  be  due  to  evil  powers  not  sufficiently 
restrained”?  Now,  it  is  with  theists  that  we  rea¬ 
son  here,  and  not  with  the  author  of  “Supernat¬ 
ural  Religion  ;”  and  till  he  can  bring  us  theists 
who  are  satisfied  on  other  grounds,  but  take  their 
last  stand  against  the  gospel  on  this,  all  his  air- 
drawn  difficulties  go  for  nothing. 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  remove  these  mis¬ 
takes  as  to  miracles,  it  might  be  our  next  task,  as 
it  is  our  principal  one,  to  go  on  to  the  evidence  of 
fact  and  history  that  the  Christian  miracles  have 
actually  been  wrought.  But  in  order  to  do  jus¬ 
tice  to  the  argument,  it  is  necessary  first  to  state 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES.  233 

some  PRESUMPTIONS  WHICH  DEAD  TO  THIS  CON- 
cuusiON  and  predispose  the  mind,  great  as  the  de¬ 
mand  made  upon  faith  by  miracles  is,  to  concede  it. 
The  considerations  about  to  be  named  are  of  vary¬ 
ing  weight ;  and  they  are  evidences  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  by  themselves  ;  nay,  in  one  case, 
more  central  to  the  proof  than  even  miracles;  nor 
are  they  the  only  ones  that  might  be  named. 
But  they  are  here  brought  forward  only  as  lead¬ 
ing  up  and  lending  help  to  the  direct  argument 
drawn  from  miracle  in  the  common  sense  of  the 
word. 

There  may  be  mentioned  then,  firsts  as  a  pre¬ 
sumption  in  favor  of  the  reality  of  the  Bible  mir¬ 
acles,  the  wonderful  nature  of  the  book  in  which 
they  are  recorded.  There  is  here  what  may  be 
called  a  literary  miracle.  I  do  not  ask  any  one  at 
this  point  to  believe  in  inspiration,  and  from  the 
self-evident  inspiration  of  the  Bible  to  accept  this 
part  of  its  contents,  though  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  this  self-evident  superiority  to  all  other 
books  goes  a  long  way  to  secure  for  the  Bible 
claim  to  inspiration  its  wide  acceptance.  But  it 
is  not  because  the  book  is  divinely  true  that  I 
ask  it  to  be  here  regarded,  but  because  it  is  out¬ 
standingly  wonderful.  This  fact  no  one,  even  the 
most  skeptical,  can  deny.  The  Bible  is  itself  a 
phenomenon,  embracing  master-pieces  in  every 


234 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACDDS. 


department  of  literature,  from  tlie  most  unlikely 
hands.  Renan,  for  slight  reasons,  denies  that  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  is  the  work  of  a  Jewish  publi¬ 
can  ;  but  he  admits  that  it  is  of  equally  obscure 
origin,  and  yet  says  that,  ‘  ‘  all  things  considered, 
it  is  the  most  important  book  of  Christianity,  the 
the  most  important  book  that  ever  has  been  writ¬ 
ten.”*  The  Gospel  of  Luke  he  grants  to  be  the 
work  of  its  received  author;  and  says,  in  regard 
to  the  Saviour’s  birth,  “This  exquisite  pastoral, 
traced  with  a  gentle  outline  upon  the  front  of 
Christianity,  has  never  been  surpassed  by  any 
strain  more  fitted  to  lull  the  woes  of  poor  human¬ 
ity  ’  t  and  in  general  he  says  of  this  Gospel,  ‘  ‘  It 
is  the  most  beautiful  book  in  the  world.  Of 
the  Gospels  as  a  whole  he  also  says,  ‘  ‘  The  com¬ 
position  of  the  Gospels  is,  next  to  the  personal  ac¬ 
tion  of  Jesus,  the  capital  fact  in  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity;  I  will  add,  in  the  history 
of  humanity.  ”  §  It  would  be  easy,  were  it  neces¬ 
sary,  to  quote  other  tributes  to  the  stupendous  lit¬ 
erary  greatness  of  the  Bible.  One  may  be  taken 
from  Gibbon,  where  he  contrasts  the  book  of  Job 
with  the  Koran;  and  it  is  all  the  more  remarka¬ 
ble  as  belonging  to  a  century  in  which,  as  Mac¬ 
aulay  says,  Voltaire  decried  Ezekiel  in  the  same 

•=•  “  Evangiles,”  page  212. 

X  Page  283. 


t  Page  27S. 
g  Page  213. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES.  235 

narrow  spirit  as  he  did  Shakespeare.  ‘  ‘  The  har¬ 
mony  and  copiousness  of  style  will  not  reach  in  a 
version  the  European  infidel:  he  will  peruse  with 
impatience  the  endless  incoherent  rhapsody  of 
faith  and  precept  and  declamation,  which  seldom 
excites  a  sentiment  or  an  idea,  which  sometimes 
crawls  in  the  dust  and  is  sometimes  lost  in  the 
clouds.  The  divine  attributes  exalt  the  fancy  of 
the  Arabian  missionary ;  but  his  loftiest  strains 
must  yield  to  the  sublime  simplicity  of  the  book 
of  Job,  composed  in  a  remote  age,  in  the  same 
country,  and  in  the  same  language.”*  The 
Bible  is  confessedly  the  greatest  classic  in  the  En¬ 
glish  or  German  language,  we  may  add,  even  in 
the  French  :  and  its  influence  has  immeasurably 
transcended  that  of  all  others.  Does  not  this 
agree  with  the  supposition  of  miracle  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  system  to  which  it  belongs  ?  Could 
the  presumption  be  greater  ?  and  how  world-wide 
is  the  contrast,  as  Gibbon  acknowledges  in  regard 
to  Mohammedanism,  with  every  other  religion  ? 

A  second  presumption,  even  stronger,  for  the 
reality  of  the  Bible  miracles,  is  the  transcendent 
character  of  the  morality  with  which  they  are  asso¬ 
ciated.  At  no  point  has  Christianity  come  out 
of  the  struggle  of  centuries  stronger  than  here. 
The  greatest  of  moralists  like  Kant  have  treated 

Gibbon  (Bohn’s  Ed.),  Vol.  V.  p.  474. 


236  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES. 

the  New  Testament  as  containing  a  full  moral 
system;  and  attacks  on  the  Christian  morality,  as 
erring,  either  by  excess  or  defect,  have  to  a  large 
extent  ceased.  Mr.  Mill,  who,  in  his  essay  on 
‘  ‘  Tiberty,  ’  ’  had  charged  Christianity  on  this  head 
with  at  least  incompleteness,  has  in  one  of  his 
posthumous  ‘  ‘  Kssays  ’  ’  made  the  remarkable  state¬ 
ment  that  no  one  could  find  a  better  rule  of  life 
than  to  act  in  every  case  so  as  that  Christ  would 
approve  of  his  conduct.  The  only  really  influen¬ 
tial  objections  to  the  Christian  morality  are  those 
connected  with  its  difficulty,  and  its  failure  to 
realise  itself  among  professed  Christians;  and  this 
has  caused  the  gospel  to  suffer  more  than  all  other 
hindrances  put  together,  for  the  inconsistencies  of 
Christian  nations  and  churches  have  been  seen 
and  read  of  all  men,  while  the  excuses  for  those 
failures,  and  even  the  attempts  to  clear  Chris¬ 
tianity  from  this  reproach,  have  not  been  equally 
successful  in  impressing  the  general  mind.  Still 
it  is  a  great  and  singular  thing  for  any  system  of 
morality  to  be  complained  of  chiefly  because  it 
is  too  high  and  ideal;  w^hile  at  the  same  time  all 
candid  minds  allow  that  Christianity  has  here 
been  immensely  effectual  in  elevating  the  moral 
standard  of  the  world,  and  in  bringing  round  a 
state  of  things  when  its  own  strictness  and  eleva¬ 
tion  shall  seem  less  hopeless  as  a  prevailing  as- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  237 

piration  and  attainment.  What  is  true  of  the 
New  Testament  here  is  inclusive  of  the  Old. 
They  must  be  partial  judges  who  deny  here  a 
radical  identity,  which  Christ  himself  and  his 
apostles,  notwithstanding  some  difficulties  of  fact 
and  interpretation,  acknowledged  between  the 
earlier  and  later  development  of  the  same  revela¬ 
tion.  The  Old  Testament  had  something  of  the 
same  height  relatively  to  everything  outside  itself 
as  the  teaching  and  institutions  of  Christianity 
still  have;  for  what  could  be  found  among  ancient 
nations  with  anything  of  the  same  practical 
weight  and  impression  as  the  Decalogue,  the 
Psalms,  the  book  of  Proverbs,  and  the  moral 
lessons  of  the  Prophets?  while  these  have  all 
been  found  capable  of  being  taken  up  into,  and 
mingling  their  force  with,  the  mightier  impulses 
of  Christianity.  That  a  great  moral  system  like 
this  should  be  connected  with  miracle,  and  gain 
its  support,  is  something  totally  different  from  the 
transient,  scattered,  and  for  the  most  part  legen¬ 
dary  and  useless  miracles  that  rise  up  out  of  the 
mere  love  of  the  marvellous  or  under  the  spell 
of  superstition.  The  purpose  is  truly  great  and 
godlike,  worthy  of  miracle  if  miracle  could  help, 
and,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  success  which 
has  followed,  warrants  the  presumption  that  mir¬ 
acle  has  here  been  at  work,  and  not  in  vain. 


23S  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLE:S. 

The  third  and  the  only  other  presumption 
which  shall  be  noticed  here  for  the  reality  of  the 
Bible  miracles,  is  their  harmony  with  the  doctrinal 
system  which  they  are  brought  in  to  establish. 
It  is  a  common  fault  of  those  who  undervalue 
miracles  to  overlook  this,  and  to  treat  the  miracle 
and  the  doctrine  as  something  belonging  to  differ¬ 
ent  spheres,  and  only  externally  applied  to  each 
other,  somehow  as  the  royal  stamp  on  a  book  is  to 
its  contents.  But  in  point  of  fact,  the  whole  of 
Christianity  relatively  to  ordinary  teaching  is  in¬ 
ward  miracle;  and  out  of  this  the  miracle,  com¬ 
monly  so  called,  grows  as  a  product,  and  hence 
as  a  witness.  The  common  Christian  view  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ— of  the  union  in  him 
of  the  divine  and  human  natures — 'Of  his  atone¬ 
ment  and  intercession,  and  of  his  exaltation  to 
dispense  the  Holy  Ghost  and  reign  over  the  spirits 
of  men  in  his  church,  and  even  outwardly  in 
the  universe,  all  this  is  so  far  from  being  God’s 
visibly  ordinary  way  of  action  as  disclosed  in 
natural  providence,  that  it  rises  above  the  thoughts 
of  men  as  far  as  the  heavens  are  above  the  earth. 
Hence  this  scheme,  in  its  whole  texture  super¬ 
natural,  cannot  be  carried  through  without  special 
acts  occurring  that  have  been  distinctively  called 
miracles,  though  they  are  not  more  miraculous 
than  the  rest.  For  one  who  is  God  incarnate  to 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  239 

rise  from  the  dead  is  not  more  miraculous  than 
to  be  God  incarnate;  nor  is  it  so  to  ascend  to 
heaven,  and  thence  to  usher  in  the  day  of  Pente¬ 
cost,  and  to  control  and  govern  the  church  by  his 
Holy  Spirit.  There  must  be  miracle,  if  there  is 
to  be  salvation.  The  laws  of  human  nature  must 
be  transcended  by  the  divine  being  united  with 
the  human.  The  human  body  could  not  be  sur¬ 
rendered  to  defeat,  and  the  incarnation  so  far  be 
made  void  by  the  Saviour  remaining  in  the  grave. 
Nor  could  the  same  law  that  applied  to  others 
who  were  raised,  limit  the  risen  life  of  Christ,  or 
detain  him  upon  earth.  Miracles  had  thus,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  true  Christian  conception,  a  deeper 
design  than  to  be  evidences  of  Christianity.  They 
had  to  be  vital  and  integral  parts  of  Christianity. 
But  this  did  not  hinder  them  from  being  evidences 
too;  and  as  evidences  they  have  a  reason  and  a 
credibility  which  would  be  wholly  wanting  if  they 
were  extraneous  and  supplementary  parts  engrafted 
upon  an  otherwise  non-miraculous  system.  Take 
for  example  our  Lord’s  so-called  miracles  of  heal¬ 
ing.  Would  it  have  been  more  credible  that  the 
Son  of  God,  invested  with  divine  powers,  should 
stand  in  the  midst  of  human  disease  and  misery 
without  any  outbursts  of  mightier  sympathy  and 
help,  and  that  he  should  be  warned  back  by  the 
very  laws  of  nature  that  were  his  own  creation  ? 


240  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

Or  is  it  not  credible  that  he  should  in  these  cures 
have  revealed  and  imaged  his  deeper  power  to 
heal  the  soul  ?  When  from  the  starting-point  of 
Christianity  he  could  not  be  a  Saviour  at  all 
without  miracle,  is  there  not  in  the  expansion 
and  development  of  this  principle,  and  in  the  ap¬ 
plying  of  it  as  he  does  to  support  his  own  claims, 
a  beautiful  inward  harmony  which  is  a  presump¬ 
tion  of  truth,  so  that  never  could  any  religion  set 
forth  this  evidence  from  so  lofty  and  consistent  a 
ground  as  that  of  Him  who  says,  ‘  ‘  Believest  thou 
not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ? 
The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of 
myself  but  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he 
doeth  the  works.” 

With  these  explanatory  and  introductory  re¬ 
marks,  it  is  now  time  to  consider  the  argument 
for  the  reality  of  the  Bible  miracles  as  posi¬ 
tively  ATTESTED  BY  HISTORY.  The  argument 
is  very  extended,  taking  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
well  as  the  New.  But  it  has  been  universally 
felt  that  the  strength  of  the  argument  lies  most  in 
the  New  Testament  period,  because,  while  the 
Old  Testament  wonders  are  sufficiently  attested, 
and  are  even  vouched  for  in  the  New  Testament, 
while  also  held  up  by  the  ever-increasing  author¬ 
ity  of  the  Old  Testament  in  matters  of  ordinary 
history,  there  is  not  the  same  abundance  of  con- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACRES.  241 

temporary  literature,  nor  reigning  clearness  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  books  and  similar 
matters  affecting  testimony.  The  question  shall, 
therefore,  be  limited  to  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament,  though  every  one  can  see  that  the 
miracles  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not  to  be  looked 
on  as  a  hindrance,  but  a  help;  and  we  can  under¬ 
stand  how  different  our  position  would  have  been 
had  the  New  Testament  revelation  been  con¬ 
firmed  by  striking  miracles,  while  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  oracles  did  not  enjoy  the  help  of  so  much  as 
one.  Again,  among  the  New  Testament  mira¬ 
cles,  those  of  Christ  himself  are  the  most  fitted  to 
attract  close  and  prolonged  study ;  and  among 
these,  by  universal  consent,  one  stands  out  as  pre¬ 
eminently  important,  the  miracle  of  his  resurrec¬ 
tion.  Even  an  unbeliever  may  be  impressed  by 
the  thought  that  Christ  (as  recorded)  rested  his 
claims  on  this  sign,  in  preference  to  others;  for  it 
has  turned  out  to  be  the  strongest,  and  this  by 
any  natural  means  Christ  could  not  have  known. 

CHRIST’S  RESURRECTION. 

In  considering  the  evidence  of  Christ’s  resur¬ 
rection,  the  same  method  is  perhaps  best  taken 
which  is  employed  in  any  other  question  of  fact. 
Nothing  is  taken  for  granted,  but  that  a  miracle 

like  the  resurrection  ma}^  be  a  fact  of  history:  all 

16 


242  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES. 

else  is  proved  like  any  other  matter  which  history 
may  embrace.  And  this  is  proved  by  three  sets 
of  arguments:  firsts  the  positive  testimonies,  more 
or  less  direct,  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrection;  sec¬ 
ondly^  the  agreement  of  this  supposition  with  other 
facts  in  the  history ;  and,  thirdly^  the  failure  of 
every  other  supposition  opposed  to  the  resurrec^ 
tion  to  account  for  these  facts. 

In  discussing,  then,  the  testimonies,  it  is  best 
to  begin  with  those  that  are  farthest  off  from  the 
centre;  and  here  there  is  to  be  placed  in  the  outer 
circle  the  unanimous,  unbroken  belief  of  the  whole 
Christian  clmrch  of  the  first  centuiy  from  the  begin¬ 
ning.  This  indeed  is  not  direct  testimony;  but  it 
is  testimony  in  so  far  as  the  consenting  belief  of 
contemporaries  who  are  interested  in  a  matter  of 
fact,  and  have  every  motive  to  test  it,  is  testi¬ 
mony  to  its  historical  reality.  No  Christian  could 
become  one  without  believing  in  the  resurrection, 
and  without  avowing  it.  Christianity  was  thus 
built  on  alleged  fact  from  the  beginning,  as  if 
Mohammed  had  been  held  to  have  been  killed  in 
one  of  his  battles,  and  to  have  returned  to  life. 
There  are  modern  Christians,  so-called,  who  think 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  unimportant;  but  not  so 
then.  The  belief  was  universal,  and  was  account¬ 
ed  vital.  Celsus  ridicules  Christians  for  believing 
on  so  slender  an  evidence  as  that  of  an  excited 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  243 

woman;  but  lie  allows  the  uniformity  of  the  be¬ 
lief.  Nor  did  it  grow  up  by  degrees,  but  was  as 
strong  from  the  first,  as  we  see  among  other  proofs, 
from  the  observance  of  the  “lyord’s  day.”  This 
is  mentioned  in  Rev.  i  :  10  as  already  in  use  in 
Asia  Minor;  and  this  writing  is  carried  up  by  the 
most  extreme  critics  of  our  time  to  a  date  before 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  regarded  by  many  of 
them,  who  accept  so  little  as  apostolic,  as  the  work 
of  the  apostle  John.  Nothing  but  belief  in  a  fact 
behind  it — a  fact  which  to  their  own  mind  they 
had  sufficiently  verified — could  have  led  Jew  and 
Gentile  thus  to  break  away  from  their  old  calen¬ 
dar,  and  put  first  in  the  new  a  once  despised  and 
rejected  name.  It  was  on  this  “stated”  day  {die 
stato\  as  Pliny  tells  us,  that  the  Christians  met  to 
sing  hymns  to  Christ  as  God,  and  that,  as  Justin 
Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
assures  us,  they  dedicated  the  once  pagan  day  of 
the  sun  as  a  memorial  alike  of  the  old  and  new 
creation.  But  it  is  needless  to  enlarge  on  this 
universal,  immediate,  unbroken,  monumentally- 
confirmed  testimony.  The  whole  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  besides  what  is  specially  devoted  to  express 
testimonies,  is  here  a  voucher  of  belief;  for  hardly 
a  book  of  it  but  contains  some  distinct  reference 
to  the  faith  of  Christians  in  this  fundamental  fact 
of  Christianity. 


244  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACRES. 

Wlieti  we  pass  beyond  this  wddest  cirele,  in¬ 
cluding  all  Christian  men,  we  come  to  a  much 
narrower,  made  up  of  Christian  writcj's^  who  attest 
the  result  of  their  inquiries  or  their  own  actual 
knowledge  in  regard  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion.  Those  who  state  the  results  of  inquiries  are 
the  two  evangelists,  Mark  and  kuke ;  those  who 
have  been  generally  believed  to  have  been  eye¬ 
witnesses  are  the  evangelists  Matthew  and  John; 
while  the  apostle  Paul  stands  between  the  two 
classes,  not  originally  a  witness  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  scenes,  but  having  later  intercourse  with  the 
risen  Jesus.  In  examining  this  various  testimony 
we  have,  in  arguing  with  others,  to  leave  out  of 
account  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  as  Chris¬ 
tians  believe  in  it,  and  consider  only  their  capaci¬ 
ties  as  recorders  and  witnesses  of  fact ;  and  we 
have  in  the  same  way  to  accept  the  best  conclu¬ 
sions,  on  ordinary  historical  grounds,  as  to  the 
genuineness  and  antiquity  of  the  four  Gospels  and 
the  writings  of  Paul  which  bear  on  this  subject. 

The  questions  of  a  critical  nature  as  to  date 
and  authorship  which  arise  have  naturally  occu¬ 
pied  much  attention;  but  the  results  may  be  very 
briefly  stated.  The  fundamental  passage  of  Paul 
in  I  Cor.  15  is  uncontested  by  the  most  extreme 
criticism.  In  like  manner,  the  hasty  allegations 
of  Baur  and  Strauss  as  to  a  very  late  date  of  Mark 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  245 

and  Luke,  have  been  recalled,  among  others  by 
Renan,  who  concedes  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is 
the  work  of  the  companion  of  Peter,  and  Luke 
that  of  the  companion  of  Paul,  who  also  writes 
the  Acts.  So,  also,  the  whole  of  recent  discussion 
is  favorable  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of 
John.  Sixty  years  ago  Eichhorn,  the  leader  of 
rationalist  criticism  in  Germany,  would  not  listen 
to  any  objections  to  the  received  view.  Now, 
after  a  long  and  most  earnest  debate,  the  tenden¬ 
cy — even  of  rationalism — is  to  return  to  the  old 
position  ;  while  the  highest  names  of  the  semi¬ 
rationalist  school — Bleek  and  Ewald — have  never 
countenanced  this  deviation;  and  more  orthodox 
writers,  like  Beyschlag  and  Luthardt,  have  met 
it  at  every  point — the  aberration  being  all  through 
in  Britain  and  America  wondered  at  rather  than 
followed.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  has  also  prof¬ 
ited  by  recent  criticism  in  Germany,  which  has 
floated  it  back  to  a  much  earlier  date  than  was 
contended  for  by  Strauss ;  and  the  old  received 
opinion,  that  its  author  was  an  apostle  and  an  eye¬ 
witness,  has  not  been  essentially  shaken,  what¬ 
ever  difficulties  may  arise  from  the  statements  of 
early  writers  as  to  a  separate  Hebrew  and  Greek 
form  of  his  Gospel,  and  the  want  of  materials 
thoroughly  to  clear  up  this  critical  question.  It 
may  be  added  that  the  case  would  not  be  vitally 


24^  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

altered  in  regard  to  the  resurrection  were  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew—as  all  moderate  rationalism 
admits — an  ordinarily  good  historical  record  of 
the  first  century,  and  connected  with  the  inner 
Christian  circle,  like  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and 
Luke.  Strauss,  among  others,  uses  Matthew  as 
sufiiciently  trustworthy  to  found  an  estimate  of 
the  Saviour’s  life  upon;  and  if  unbelievers  may 
use  it  historically  for  their  purposes,  why  should 
its  value  cease  in  the  hands  of  Christians  ? 

What  is  now  the  bearing  and  worth  of  this 
mass  of  testimony?  It  is  impossible  to  examine 
it  in  detail;  but  two  main  points,  independent  of 
each  other,  stand  out — the  discovery  on  the  morn¬ 
ing  of  the  third  day  that  the  tomb  was  empty,  and 
the  various  appearances  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples, 
by  whom  he  was  recognized.  Paul  vouches  only 
for  the  appearances ;  but  the  evangelists  also  for 
the  finding  of  the  tomb  empty.  In  regard  to  this 
latter  point,  the  indications  in  Matthew  and  Mark 
are  verified  by  the  actual  explorations  in  Luke 
and  John;  so  that,  if  we  attach  any  credit  to  these 
writers  at  all,  the  fact  is  proved.  Nor  did  it  need 
any  special  witness,  for  it  was  not  in  itself  a  mir¬ 
acle  to  find  a  tomb  empty  where  a  body  had  lain. 
But  much  more  various,  strong,  and,  as  befitted 
the  case,  singular  in  their  force  as  evidence,  are 
the  recorded  appearances  of  the  risen  Saviour. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 


247 


There  are  appearances  common  to  all  the  Gospels: 
that  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  if  we  grant  the  last 
verses  of  Mark  16,  that  to  all  the  apostles,  which 
is  also  affirmed  by  Paul.  There  is  in  all  the  Gos¬ 
pels  the  similar  part  played  by  women.  There  is 
in  all  an  original  element  of  doubt  and  fear  in 
connection  with  the  fact  of  resurrection ;  and  there 
starts  up  in  all  a  most  wonderful  mental  and 
spiritual  likeness  of  the  risen  Saviour  to  his  for¬ 
mer  self,  as,  for  example,  in  Matthew  and  Mark 
(as  supplemented),  the  apostolic  commission  ;  in 
Luke,  the  discourse  on  the  way  to  Emmaus  ;  in 
John,  the  scenes  with  Mary,  with  Thomas,  and  at 
the  Sea  of  Galilee.  We  can  thus  see  for  ourselves 
the  very  process  by  which  the  disciples  were  con¬ 
vinced,  and  can  judge  of  its  reasonableness  ;  for, 
convincing  as  the  bodily  marks  were,  the  evidence 
of  resurrection  lies  even  more  in  identity  of  soul 
than  of  body,  and  we  can  feel  how  unspeakably 
beyond  invention  were  these  incidents  and  utter¬ 
ances,  while  also  so  full  of  the  past  and  so  preg¬ 
nant  with  the  future. 

The  argument  is  rounded  off  by  the  appear¬ 
ances  that  are  recorded  by  separate  writers — one 
or  more — as  in  Paul  those  to  Peter  and  James,  in 
Matthew  to  the  women,  and  so  of  others.  It  has 
been  made  an  objection  that  there  is  not  room  for 
all  the  appearances;  but  this  has  never  been 


248  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

proved,  and,  on  the  contrary,  in  forty  days  there 
was  opportunity,  as  the  narrative  bears,  for  more. 
And  however  difficult  it  may  be  to  harmonize  all 
the  accounts,  especially  as  to  the  first  day,  this, 
as  has  often  been  remarked,  is  the  inevitable  ac¬ 
companiment  of  all  narratives,  however  authen¬ 
tic,  that  travel  over  the  same  ground.  It  is  won¬ 
derful  how  much  has  been  done  by  scholars  to 
show  the  compatibility  of  one  part  of  the  various 
records  with  the  rest;  and  though  this  is  probably 
an  insoluble  problem,  it  is  striking  how  slight 
hints  in  one  Gospel  or  in  Paul  are  borne  out  in 
some  other  place.  Thus,  our  Lord’s  appearance 
to  Peter  in  i  Cor.  15  is  confirmed  by  the  message 
in  Mark  to  Peter;  the  race  of  Peter  to  the  sepul¬ 
chre  in  Luke  is  enlarged  in  the  fourth  Gospel  into 
that  of  Peter  and  John;  and  the  appearances  in 
Galilee,  of  which  there  is  not  a  word  in  Luke,  re¬ 
appear  in  the  last  of  the  Gospels.  Incidents  like 
these  go  a  long  way  to  balance  alleged  discords, 
and  show  that  we  are  on  the  track  not  of  fabrica¬ 
tion  or  license,  but  of  real,  though  various,  his¬ 
tory. 

One  great  merit  of  this  testimony  is,  that  it  is 
not  carefully  adjusted  and  dovetailed  into  a  legal 
argument.  Some  critics  have  rashly  wished  for 
this,  and  have  blamed  the  Gospels  because  they 
are  not  cast  in  the  m.ould  of  a  p7'oces  verbal^  signed 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES.  249 

and  countersigned  by  witnesses  and  authorities. 
The  Gospels  were  not  written  to  prove  a  series  of 
points  so  much  as  artlessly  to  unfold  the  life, 
death,  and  victory  of  their  great  subject;  and  the 
delineation  of  character  is  more  with  them  than 
the  establishment  of  incident.  But  with  all  their 
disregard  of  legal  dress  and  technical  vouchers, 
how  strong  is  the  body  of  proof  which  these  wri¬ 
ters  have  piled  up  almost  unconsciously  into  one 
of  the  clearest  of  moral  demonstrations  !  Could 
the  apostle  Paul  have  thrown  out  at  random, 
when  speaking  with  the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  a 
set  of  impressions  as  to  Christ’s  appearings  which 
he  had  rashly  taken  up,  even  to  the  extent  of  as¬ 
serting  one  made  to  more  than  five  hundred  per¬ 
sons  at  once,  the  most  of  whom  are  affirmed  to  be 
still,  after  a  quarter  of  a  century,  alive,  while 
others  are  known  to  be  dead  ?  De  Wette  could 
not  resist  this  testimony,  but  says  in  his  “Com¬ 
mentary,”  “The  testimony  of  the  apostle  decides 
as  to  the  certainty  of  the  fact.”  But  how  many 
critics  of  inferior  order  have  supposed  that  a  wri¬ 
ter  like  Paul,  who  was  so  entirely  at  home  in 
every  matter  affecting  what  to  him  was  the  very 
centre  of  existence,  could,  when  laying  down  the 
very  articles  of  faith  and  hope,  have  been  so  igno¬ 
rant  or  so  careless  as  to  have  made  the  most  cir¬ 
cumstantial  statements  of  fact  without  inquiry  or 


250  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

foundation.  Not  less  strong  is  Luke,  who  is  ad¬ 
mitted  by  Renan  to  have  been  the  companion  of 
Paul,  and  consequently  with  him,  in  Jerusalem 
and  in  Caesarea,  during  his  imprisonment  of  two 
years.  How  fresh  must  everything  still  have 
been,  after  the  lapse  of  six  or  seven  and  twenty 
years,  to  an  eager  investigator,  who  doubtless  met 
in  Palestine  with  eye-witnesses  of  the  Gospel  his¬ 
tory,  and  who  in  his  Gospel  claims  to  have  ‘  ‘  traced 
the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first.  ’  ’ 
(Revised  Version.)  Mark  likewise,  whose  author¬ 
ship  is  not  questioned,  belongs  to  the  most  select 
circle  of  the  companions  of  the  apostles,  the  friend 
and  fellow-laborer  of  Paul  and  Peter,  the  nephew 
of  Barnabas,  and  more  even  than  Ruke  mixed  up 
with  the  rise  of  the  new  faith,  as  a  Jerusalem 
Christian,  and  one  whose  personal  recollections 
went  back  to  the  time  of  the  ministry  and  death 
of  Jesus.  Still  stronger  is  the  testimony  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  as  the  work  of  an  eye-witness,  of  a 
leading  apostle,  and  of  our  Cord’s  most  intimate 
human  friend.  The  deniers  of  the  supernatural 
were  bound  sooner  or  later  to  have  disputed  this 
work,  for  it  does  not  seem  that  their  position  can 
possibly  endure  its  uncontested  authority.  But 
now  that  they  have  made  the  utmost  effort  in  this 
direction,  and  failed,  the  evidence  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  comes  forth  all  the  clearer  from  one  to 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  25I 

whom  the  face  and  form  of  his  Master  were  the 
most  cherished  of  remembrances,  who  had  been 
at  the  bottom  of  His  empty  grave,  and  who  was 
fitted  as  none  other  to  catch  and  to  perpetuate  the 
spiritual  features,  as  well  as  the  bodily,  which  re¬ 
appeared,  brightened  but  not  altered  by  the  vic¬ 
tory  over  death.  The  testimony  of  Matthew — an¬ 
other  eye-witness,  and  from  the  more  Judaic  side 
of  Christian  teaching — confirms  the  record;  and 
it  is  worthy  of  notice,  in  reply  to  those  who  have 
sought  by  an  alleged  fundamental  discord  in  doc¬ 
trine  to  invalidate  the  evidence  for  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  and  other  gospel  facts,  how  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  is  as  necessary  to  the  first  Gospel  as 
to  the  fourth,  leading  in  as  it  does  the  fullest  state¬ 
ment  of  the  Trinity,  taking  up  the  lessons  of  the 
baptism  and  the  transfiguration,  and  harmoni¬ 
zing  with  itself  utterances  ever-recurring,  as  in 
Matt.  11:25-30,  of  a  grandeur  and  sublimity  not 
distinguishable  from  those  of  the  last  of  the  evan¬ 
gelists. 

Let  it  be  added  that  we  have,  not  only  in  the 
existence  of  these  written  testimonies,  but  also  in 
their  reception  and  public  use  from  the  beginning 
in  the  Christian  church  (which  is  something  dis¬ 
tinct  from  the  universal  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion),  a  powerful  argument.  The  Gospels  were 
used  as  soon  as  they  existed.  For  this  we  have 


252  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  in  his  first  Apol¬ 
ogy  (chap.  67) ;  and  all  that  has  been  said  to  shake 
this  position  leaves  their  alleged  coining  into  use 
between  their  origin  and  his  day,  which  after  all 
was  in  much  less  than  a  century,  wholly  unex¬ 
plained.  It  was  thus  not  a  mere  generality  as  to 
the  resurrection  that  the  church  took  up,  but  par¬ 
ticular  narratives,  full,  circumstantial,  and  capa¬ 
ble  at  every  point  of  contradiction  or  verification. 
No  history  has  ever  received  such  an  adhesion, 
for  the  original  witnesses  and  converts  were  but  a 
handful ;  and  every  accession  of  new  converts  car¬ 
ried  with  it  a  guarantee  never  equalled  for  sincer¬ 
ity  and  conviction,  and  that  on  the  part  of  men 
thoroughly  competent  to  inquire  for  themselves. 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  point  necessary  to 
be  urged,  in  addition  to  the  separate  weight  of 
the  testimonies,  viz.,  how  far  the  admission  of 
the  resurrection  accounts  for  other  tmde7iiable  facts 
of  the  history.  Among  these,  two  stand  out  pre¬ 
eminent  as  rationally  accounted  for  by  the  fact  of 
,  the  resurrection.  The  one  is  the  change  of  mind 
produced  on  the  disciples,  and  the  other  is  the 
impression  made  on  the  world  by  the  Christianity 
which  began  immediately  to  be  proclaimed.  The 
first  of  these  facts  is  incontestable.  We  know 
indeed  only  from  the  Scripture  narrative  itself  of 
the  extreme  depression  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTES.  253 

joy  and  confidence  wliich  succeeded.  But  noth¬ 
ing  was  so  natural  as  the  shock  given  them  by 
the  crucifixion ;  and  nothing  was  ever  more  natu¬ 
rally  described.  How  then  did  this  give  place  ? 
Nothing  so  completely  accounts  for  it  as  the  great 
event  which  came  between,  and  the  operation  of 
this  is  in  the  Gospels  a  beautiful  mental  study. 
It  has  been  asked,  indeed,  why  the  apostles  w^ere 
not  more  cheerful  if  Christ  had  promised  to  re¬ 
turn.  But  the  mistake  as  to  the  meaning  of  his 
death  rather  overwhelmed  them  with  disappoint¬ 
ment  than  allowed  hope  to  revive,  and  a  new  and 
joyful  fact  was  the  only  thing  that  could  w^ork  a 
change.  There  is  a  profundity,  as  w^ell  as  a  sim¬ 
plicity,  in  this  part  of  the  gospel  history  which 
has  alw'ays  been  admired;  and  wdien  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  is  denied,  the  change  to  hopefulness  sinks 
into  mere  weakness  and  enthusiasm.  Dr.  Baur, 
the  leader  of  the  Tubingen  school,  never  missed 
the  mark  more  than  when  he  said  that  it  is  of  no 
consequence  how  the  apostles  came  by  the  belief 
of  the  resurrection,  for  the  mere  belief  would 
anyhow  do  the  same  work.  This  is  to  build  the 
world  upon  delusion,  and  to  make  groundless  fancy 
as  a  moral  force  equal  to  the  natural,  steady,  and 
effectual  action  of  truth. 

Still  more  impressive  is  the  harmony  between 
the  resurrection,  taken  as  a  reality,  and  the  start 


254  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

it  gave  the  infant  and  apparently  defeated  Chris¬ 
tian  cause.  lycssing  was  so  struck  with  this  that, 
in  spite  of  all  the  difficulties  which  he  found  in 
the  resurrection  story  as  now  before  us,  he  felt 
that  truth  lay  at  the  bottom  of  what  so  prevailed. 
The  church  becomes  the  aggressor,  and  the  world 
yields.  It  is  lamentable  if,  in  such  a  case,  human¬ 
ity  could  not  hold  its  own  against  mental  weak¬ 
ness.  Strauss  has  bitterly  complained 'of  belief 
in  the  resurrection  as  the  ‘  ‘  humbug  of  history.  ’  ’ 
But  the  unreasonableness  of  belief  in  it  as  not  a 
fact,  is  the  exact  measure  of  the  reasonableness  of 
belief  in  it  as  a  fact  which  could  not  be  gainsaid. 
It  is  the  test  of  its  suitableness  to  solve  the  his¬ 
tory.  It  explains  the  helplessness  of  the  adverse 
party,  the  paralysis  which  hindered  every  effort 
at  confutation  or  exposure  as  by  the  production 
of  the  Saviour’s  body,  and  the  depression  which 
shut  up  the  Jewish  opposition  to  silence  or  to 
unreasoning  violence.  It  also  accounts  for  such 
wild  rumors  as  that  the  disciples  had  stolen  the 
body.  This  has  been  charged  home  as  a  Chris¬ 
tian  slander  on  the  Jewish  authorities.  But  the 
Christians  had  no  motive  to  invent  such  a  cal¬ 
umny,  which  evidently  comes  from  the  other 
camp.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  much  as 
this  report  has  been  scouted  by  recent  unbelief, 
so  scouted  that  it  has  been  utterly  denied  to  have 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  255 

had  a  place  in  the  thoughts  of  the  Jewish  rulers, 
it  was,  though  a  weak  invention,  such  a  one  as 
men  fall  upon  when  perplexed  and  baffled;  and 
so  late  as  last  century  the  truth  of  it  was  made 
by  Woolston  the  basis  of  his  attack  on  the  credi¬ 
bility  of  the  resurrection. 

Having  thus  shown  the  sufflciency  of  the 
great  fact  of  the  resurrection  to  clear  the  field  of 
history  all  round,  it  only  remains  to  touch  on  our 
third  vi^.,  the  discord  with  history  which  the 

denial  of  the  resurrection  introduces.  So  far  as  this 
is  the  opposite  of  what  has  been  already  urged,  it 
has  been  virtually  considered.  But  there  is  more 
than  a  blank;  there  is  a  positive  collision,  when 
the  denier  of  the  resurrection  goes  on  to  give  some 
positive  theory  of  how  the  alleged  resurrection 
originated,  and  seeks  on  the  ground  of  that  theory 
to  explain  the  facts  of  the  case.  A  rapid  review 
then  of  the  negative  theories  of  the  resurrection 
will  close  this  paper. 

The  weakest  of  all  the  theories  is  that  which 
traces  up  the  current  belief  in  the  resurrection  to 
fr^d  and  imposture  on  the  part  of  Christ’s  disci¬ 
ples.  This  is  one  of  the  controversies  which  the 
Christian  church  has  outlived ;  and  though  it 
survived  from  Celsus  down  to  the  Wolfenbiittel 
fragmentist  of  last  century,  there  is  no  school  of 
unbelief  that  would  now  give  it,  even  as  an  alter- 


25^  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

native,  a  place  on  its  record.  This  theory  will 
suit  nothing,  not  even  the  disappearance  of  the 
body.  The  narrative  has  to  be  falsified  by  the 
denial  that  the  tomb  was  sealed  and  guarded ;  and 
the  courage  and  daring  of  the  apostles  have  to  be 
unhistorically  exalted.  The  moral  contradiction 
is  still  more  outrageous.  The  greatest  of  mor¬ 
alists  leaves  his  disciples  capable  of  this  in¬ 
famy;  and  his  influence,  in  spite  of  this  scandal, 
through  these  impure  instruments,  immediately 
begins  to  elevate  the  world. 

Equally  incredible,  though  not  quite  so  mon¬ 
strous,  is  the  theory  that  Christ  did  not  really 
die,  but  only  swooned  on  the  cross,  and  that  he 
emerged  from  the  grave  and  showed  himself  alive 
to  his  disciples.  This  so  far  attempts,  like  the 
first  theory,  to  account  for  the  empty  tomb,  but 
goes  beyond  it  in  explaining  also  the  supposed 
appearances.  But  it  really  violates  the  history  at 
every  point.  It  violates  the  history  of  the  cruci- 
‘  fixion,  for  our  Lord  received  a  special  wound  to 
make  sure  of  his  death ;  it  violates  the  history  of 
the  burial;  for  even,  if  recovered  from  a  swoon, 
he  could  have  found  no  means  of  extrication; 
and  it  violates  the  history  of  the  appearances  of 
resurrection,  for  Christ  could  not  thus  have  sud¬ 
denly  recovered  and  his  disciples  never  suppose 
him  a  returned  survivor  of  the  last  penalty,  but 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  257 

always  one  actually  risen.  This  scheme  disagrees 
with  the  character  of  Christ’s  enemies,  who  would 
not  have  done  their  work  so  slackly ;  of  his  friends, 
who  could  not  have  made  such  a  mistake,  or 
received  such  an  impulse  from  a  mere  natural 
return;  and  most  of  all,  of  Christ  himself,  who 
could  not  have  so  acted  as  to  have  suffered  such  a 
delusion  to  arise  as  that  his  case  was  one  of  resur¬ 
rection,  and  must  have  come  out  of  his  hiding- 
place  to  have  exposed  it.  This  theory  is  only 
worthy  of  the  naturalism  of  a  Paulus;  and  though 
the  genius  of  Schleiermacher  has  unhappily  con¬ 
descended  to  it,  it  is  one  of  those  eccentricities 
which  do  not  even  set  a  fashion,  but  after  a  day’s 
wonder  pass  away. 

The  only  theory  that  is  now  seriously  and 
widely  held  is  what  is  called  the  vision  theory^  or 
that  Christ’s  disciples,  through  the  influence  of 
love  or  faith,  or  some  other  principle  distinct 
from  wilful  error,  were  led  mistakenly  to  believe 
that  their  Master  had  returned  from  the  dead,  and 
propagated  the  accounts  of  these  mere  visions  as 
actual  appearances.  This  is  the  view  set  forth 
by  Strauss  and  Renan  in  their  well-known  works, 
though  Renan  inconsistently  adds  on  to  this  the 
theory  of  fraud,  and  supposes  it  conceivable  that 
Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  women  had  some¬ 
thing  to  do  with  the  transfer  of  the  body.  These 

17 


258  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTKS. 

writers  further  differ,  Strauss  in  supposing  that 
the  appearances,  due  to  the  action  of  imaginative 
love  and  longing,  only  began  in  Galilee,  and  that 
the  disciples  after  a  long  interval  returned  to  Jeru¬ 
salem  to  start  the  report  and  found  the  Christian 
church ;  whereas  Renan  makes  all  begin  imme¬ 
diately  in  Jerusalem.  Each  of  these  writers,  in 
setting  aside  the  other,  attests  the  strength  of  the 
Christian  position ;  for  if  all  began  in  Jerusalem 
and  began  at  once,  by  the  appearances  immedi¬ 
ately  happening,  and  being  appealed  to  there, 
Strauss  seems  to  feel  that  the  resurrection  must 
be  a  fact;  while  Renan  probably  realises  the  diffi¬ 
culty  of  contradicting  the  evangelists  here  as  to 
place  and  time,  and  yet  founding  anything  any¬ 
where  on  their  testimony.  As  it  is,  the  difficul¬ 
ties  of  Strauss,  who  is  here  the  better  advocate  of 
unbelief  of  the  two,  are  immense.  He  has  not 
only  to  create  in  Galilee,  amid  disappointment 
and  defeat,  and  with  no  prophecy  of  resurrection, 
a  mood  of  mind  that  made  belief  in  resurrection 
easy;  but  when  the  disciples  return  to  Jerusalem 
the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  are  to  be 
vouchsafed  to  meetings  of  any  size,  and  after  a 
long  silence,  to  help  them  in  reviving  an  unwel¬ 
come  and  fading  memory;  while  thus  excited  and 
even  fanatical,  the  Jewish  Christians  are  to  be  so 
lofty  and  earnest  in  spirit  as  to  shake  the  skepti- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES.  259 

cism  of  Paul,  and  predispose  him  to  a  similar  vis¬ 
ion  and  testimony;  yet  these  visions  of  the  risen 
One  are  suddenly  to  end,  and  without  them 
Christianity  is  to  prevail  in  regions  where  neither 
risen  Christ  nor  unrisen  had  ever  been  heard  of 
or  expected.  If  the  resurrection  demands  faith, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  this  theory,  which  is  per¬ 
haps  the  best  that  can  be  offered,  dispenses  with 
it;  and  we  see  how  little  it  fills  up  the  gap  in  the 
fact  that  Baur  prefers  to  leave  the  whole  subject 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  a  mystery;  and  Keim, 
though  otherwise  disposed  to  leave  out  miracle, 
is  prepared  to  grant  its  ingress  here  a  last  possi¬ 
bility,  and  to  conceive  that  the  glorified  spirit 
of  Jesus  so  acted  on  his  disciples  that  they  con¬ 
founded  it  with  his  material  presence.  Against 
these  visionary  schemes  the  clear  testimonies 
of  the  evangelists  and  of  Paul  maintain  their 
place. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  shake  the  au¬ 
thority  of  Paul  by  urging  that  his  own  vision 
of  Christ,  which  he  connects  with  the  rest,  was 
only  inward.  But  this  is  supported  by  nothing 
in  his  other  references  to  this  memorable  event 
which  in  Acts  affects  to  blindness  his  bodily  sense; 
nor  can  we  well  understand  a  visionary  appear¬ 
ance  extended  to  five  hundred  witnesses,  or  by 
any  fairness  of  interpretation  introduce  into 


26o  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACLES. 

this  an  argument  for  the  literal  resurrection  of 
the  body,  the  very  turning-point  of  which  lies 
in  Christ’s  resurrection  being  itself  real  and 
literal. 

We  are  here,  then,  towards  the  end  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  as  unprovided  with  any  de¬ 
liverance  from  the  historical  necessity  of  accept¬ 
ing  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  other  Gospel 
miracles,  as  in  the  first  century;  and  the  whole 
process  of  criticism  and  philosophy  has  simply 
been  to  show  that  if  the  supernatural  is  cogniza¬ 
ble  and  provable,  it  is  here  manifested  and  proved. 
No  one  can  admit,  or  has  ever  admitted,  the  res¬ 
urrection  miracle,  without  granting  the  others  in 
the  Gospel  history.  The  apostle  Paul,  in  words 
not  contested  by  the  most  extreme  criticism,  claims 
to  have  wrought  miracles  in  his  own  person,  and 
claims  this  as  what  belonged  to  other  apostles. 
‘‘Truly  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought 
among  yon  in  all  patience,  in  signs  and  wonders 
and  mighty  deeds.”  2  Cor.  12  :  i2.  The  mirac¬ 
ulous  element  in  the  Old  Testament  will  not  be 
contested  by  those  who  admit  it  in  connection 
with  Christianity,  or  who  allow  a  single  proph¬ 
ecy  of  Christ,  or  indeed  any  revelation  before  his 
advent.  Thus,  where  resistance  is  overcome  at 
one  point,  it  yields  throughout;  and  though  it  is 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACDKS.  261 

a  quite  lawful  question  whether  some  particular 
occurrences  are  held  forth  in  Scripture  as  miracu¬ 
lous  in  character,  the  general  reign  of  miracle  is 
established. 

The  Christian  church,  indeed,  is  far  from  say¬ 
ing  that  the  mere  historic  belief  in  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  in  other  miracles,  will  of 
itself  make  any  man  a  Christian,  for  he  must  add 
to  this — or,  rather,  have  added  by  a  higher  grace — 
a  discernment  of  the  divine  greatness  of  Christ  as 
a  Saviour  from  sin  by  his  sacrifice,  and  a  reliance 
upon  this  and  the  other  provisions  of  the  Christian 
remedy,  whmh  are  all  connected  with  Christ’s 
death  and  resurrection.  Nor  is  it  held  by  the 
Christian  church  that  the  argument  from  mira¬ 
cles  is  the  only  avenue  by  which  the  presence  of 
God  in  support  of  Christianity  may  reveal  itself, 
and  lead  up  to  that  higher  faith  in  which  the  more 
historical  belief  that  is  thus  variously  strength¬ 
ened  has  its  true  and  saving  consummation.  At 
the  same  time  it  must  be  held  that  if  the  Christian 
scheme  be  not  founded  on  fact,  and  attested  by 
historic  evidence,  its  saving  applications  and  in¬ 
fluences  must  be  cut  off,  and  rendered  through 
any  other  channel  impossible;  so  that  while  the 
historic  proof  of  Christianity  does  not  make  Chris¬ 
tian  faith,  its  historic  disproof  would  unmake  it. 
It  is  in  this  deep  and  important  sense  that  the  ar- 


263  CHRISTIANITY  AND  MIRACTKS. 

gument  for  miracles  is  contended  for  in  this  tract, 
and,  as  the  writer  rejoices  to  believe,  by  an  ever¬ 
growing  host  of  earnest  apologists;  and  it  is  his 
prayer  that  however  the  cause  must  ever  tran¬ 
scend  the  best  powers  of  the  advocate,  it  may 
not  be  contended  for  in  vain. 


THE  WITNESS 


OF 


MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE 


TO 


CHRISTIANITY. 


BY  THE  . 

y/ 


REV.  J.  BRADFORD  THOMSON,  M.  A., 


PROFESSOR  OF  MORAL  PHILOSOPHY  IN  NEW  COLLEGE,  AND  IN  HACKNEY 

COLLEGE,  LONDON. 


ARGUMENT  OP  THE  TRACT. 


♦ 

The  existence  of  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and  the 
existence  of  Christianity  as  a  religion  whose  doctrines 
are  recorded  in  certain  documents,  and  which  is  histori¬ 
cal  in  its  origin  and  potent  in  its  influence,  are  assumed. 
The  most  important  facts  of  man’s  moral  nature  and 
life  are  set  forth,  and  their  correspondence  is  shown 
with  the  leading  revelations  of  Christianity,  with  what 
Christianity  teaches  of  the  character  and  government  of 
God,  the  unique  character  and  ministry  of  Christ,  and 
with  the  moral  teaching  of  Christianity. 

Conscience  accords  with  Christianity.  Man’s  aspi¬ 
rations  after  perfection  are  met  by  it.  The  redemption 
it  provides  is  adapted  to  man’s  sinful  state.  Man’s 
moral  nature  recognizes  the  beneficial  influence  of 
Christianity  on  society.  Conscience  responds  to  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  retribution.  The  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  of  immortality  satisfies  man’s  moral  nature. 


Ae  Witiiess  of  JVLaii’s  JVEoral 


to 


The  religion  of  Christ  lays  claim  to  authority 
so  high  and  special  that  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of 
surprise  that  its  claims  are  constantly  being  ques¬ 
tioned.  In  a  sense,  Christianity  is  always  on  its 
trial;  and  happily  the  witnesses  are  many  upon 
whom  Christianity  may  call  to  give  evidence  on 
its  behalf. 

Recognising  the  value  of  them  all,  we  pro¬ 
pose  to  examine  one  of  these  witnesses  with  care, 
thoroughness,  and  patience. 

Man’s  Morae  Nature  and  Life  may  be 
found,  upon  attentive  inquiry,  to  yield  evidence 
the  most  important  and  material  of  all.  For,  be 
it  observed,  Christianity  is  not  simply  a  body  of 
truth;  it  is  a  practical  law,  a  revealed  principle, 
motive,  and  aim  of  life.  And  man  is  not  simply 
an  animal,  not  even  simply  an  intellectual  agent; 
he  is  a  moral  being,  with  perceptions  of  right,  a 


266  witne:ss  of  man’s  moraf  naturf 

consciousness  of  duty,  a  power  of  choice,  a  na¬ 
ture  essentially  responsible,  with  spiritual  affinities 
and  immortal  hopes.  If  the  evidence  furnished 
by  the  special  nature  of  man  with  regard  to  the 
claims  of  Christianity  can  be  fairly  taken,  that 
evidence  will  certainly  be  relevant,  and  our  con¬ 
viction  is  that  it  will  be  found  to  support  those 
claims  in  a  manner  both  effective  and  conclusive. 

I. 

The  Nature  of  the  Argument. 

Every  argument  proceeds  upon  a  certain  basis 
of  admitted  fact;  as,  for  example,  the  principles 
of  reasoning  native  to  the  mind,  and  the  phenom¬ 
ena  which  actually  exist,  whether  in  outward 
nature,  in  the  mind,  or  in  human  society.  We 
here  make  two  assumptions.  First,  we  assume 
^/le  facts  of  mail' s  7noral  nature  as  they  are  and  can 
be  shown  to  be.  Secondly,  we  assume  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  Christianity  as  a  religion  whose  doctrines 
are  recorded  in  certain  well-known  documents, 
and  as  a  religion  having  a  historical  origin  and 
wielding  an  undeniable  force  in  human  society. 

Addressing  ourselves  to  those  who  do  not  deny 
the  facts  or  disparage  the  dignity,  or  even  dis¬ 
credit  the  authority  of  man’s  moral  nature,  we 
aim  at  showing  them  that  their  acknowledgment 


TO  CPIRISTIANITY. 


267 

of  man’s  moral  nature,  and  their  reverence  for  the 
moral  law,  should  in  all  justice  lead  them  to  ad¬ 
mit  the  authority  of  the  Christian  religion.  The 
acceptance  of  the  one  may  be  shown  logically  to 
involve  the  acceptance  of  the  other. 

For  dogmatic  atheists  this  line  of  reasoning 
has  neither  validity  nor  interest.  If  there  be  no 
God,  it  is  useless  to  endeavor  to  prove  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  a  divine  origin.  But  it  may  cast  some 
light  upon  that  great  Unknown  in  whieh  many 
minds  find,  or  rather  fail  to  find,  the  Unknowable. 
And  for  deists  and  skeptics  this  line  of  thought 
has  a  profound  significance,  leading  them  whither 
many  would  fain  be  led,  if  only  they  could  lay 
their  hand  upon  the  clew. 

The  argument  is  one  fivni  obvious  adaptation  and 
from  cej'-tain  correspondence. 

Took  at  the  works  of  human  art.  Here  is  a 
lock,  with  many  wards  and  curious  intricacies; 
and  here  is  a  key,  unlike  other  keys,  and  with 
singulscr  peculiarities.  Experience  shows  that 
there  is  a  eorrespondence  between  the  lock  and 
the  key,  for  the  one  exactly  fits  and  easily  opens 
the  other.  They  are  the  workmanship  of  the 
same  skilful  artificer,  and  are  made,  under  the 
direction  of  the  same  intelligent  design,  each  for 
the  other.  The  key  fits  the  lock;  the  lock,  so  to 
speak,  explains,  accounts  satisfactorily  for,  the  key. 


268  WITNESS  OK  man’s  MORAK  NATURE 

Look  at  one  of  the  works  of  nature — as  we 
should  say,  of  divine  creative  power.  Take  some 
part  of  man’s  bodily  constitution.  Here  is  the 
eye,  a  marvel  of  optical  mechanism.  And  here 
is  light,  an  ethereal  undulation,  entering  the  eye, 
affecting  the  optic  nerve,  and  awakening  the  sen¬ 
sation  of  sight.  We  say  the  eye  is  adapted  to  the 
light;  light  is  adapted  to  the  eye;  neither  can  be 
understood  or  explained  without  the  other.  The 
theist  recognizes  in  these  the  designed  and  corre¬ 
sponding  products  of  the  wisdom  and  the  power 
of  the  same  divine  Optician  and  Mechanician. 

The  rejection  of  design,  of  purpose,  is  irra¬ 
tional  and  unphilosophical.  The  repudiation  of 
conscious  purpose,  and  of  voluntary  effort  to 
attain  purpose,  in  the  human  sphere,  is  the  ex¬ 
tinction  of  philosophy,  and  is  an  insult  to  con¬ 
sciousness.  If  mind  have  indeed  presided  over 
the  creation  or  development  of  the  universe,  it 
would  be  absurd  to  exclude  such  adaptations  as 
are  everywhere  apparent  in  nature  from  the  prov¬ 
ince  of  that  mind’s  foresight  and  control. 

If  there  are  traces  of  design  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  man’s  moral  nature;  if  he  may  justly  be 
said  to  have  been  made  so  as  to  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  right  and  wrong,  to  approve  of  virtue,  to 
aspire  to  progress  and  perfection  in  all  good,  to 
find  a  law  and  motive  to  the  better  life  in  a  super- 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


269 

sensible  sphere;  if  man’s  nature  is  distinctively 
religious,  having  reference  to  a  divine  Ruler  and 
lyord:  if  this  be  so,  what  follows?  This  follows: 
that  if  Christianity  be  the  revelation  of  the  mind 
and  heart  of  the  Supreme,  we  may  expect  to  fijtd  a 
correspondence  between  the  two ;  they  may  be  ex¬ 
pected  jointly  to  disclose  the  intentions  of  their 
common  Author,  and  will  find,  each  in  the  other, 
its  proper  complement. 

It  is  not  urged  that  this  correspondence  de¬ 
monstrates  the  authority  of  Christianity.  The 
case  is  not  one  for  demonstration,  which  belongs 
to  another  sphere.  But  it  is  claimed  that  there  is 
a  high  degree  of  probability  that  the  Author  of  na¬ 
ture  and  of  man,  who  is  consequently  the  Author 
of  what  is  most  distinctively  human — man’s  moral 
nature — is  also  the  Author  of  Christianity,  as  a 
religion  adapted  alike  to  man’s  deepest  needs  and 
loftiest  aspirations. 

The  witness  before  us  has  this  advantage  over 
some  others:  it  speaks  a  language  all  can  under¬ 
stand.  Every  reflecting  man  who  desires  to  know 
what  is  true,  to  love  what  is  good,  to  do  what  is 
right,  hears  from  the  recesses  of  his  own  breast, 
and  in  his  own  familiar  language,  the  evidence 
in  question.  The  reader  has  not  to  ask.  What  is 
the  dictum  of  the  scientist  or  the  philosopher  or 
the  scholar  ?  but,  What  is  the  deliverance  of  my 


270  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

own  conscience,  my  own  heart,  my  own  daily 
experience  and  observation  ?  ‘  ‘  The  word  is  nigh 
thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart.” 
Rom.  io:8. 

This  remark,  of  course,  presumes,  on  the  part 
of  the  inquirer,  not  only  attention  to  his  own  na¬ 
ture,  but  also  a  candid  consideration  of  the  real 
claims  of  the  Christian  religion.  Ret  it  be  clearly 
understood  that  it  is  not  of  Christianity  as  embod¬ 
ied,  with  more  or  less  of  justice  and  completeness, 
in  the  life  of  its  professors,  that  we  speak;  far  less 
is  it  of  any  actual  historic  church;  for  both  pro¬ 
fessing  Christians  and  “visible  churehes”  have 
too  often  utterly  misrepresented  the  religion  they 
have  claimed  to  represent  to  the  world.  We 
speak  of  Christianity  as  constituted  by  its  author¬ 
itative  Founder. 

This  appeal  to  man’s  moral  constitution  as  in 
harmony  with  the  religion  of  Christ  constitutes 
an  arofument  both  reasonable  and  valid,  and  one 
the  force  of  which  all  men  are  capable  of  feeling. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  an  ap¬ 
peal  to  the  moral  nature  of  man  is  an  appeal  to 
evidence  opposed  to  reason,  or  independent  of 
reason.  If  v/e  were  to  try  to  show,  from  a,  care¬ 
ful  inquiry  into  man’s  bodily  constitution,  that 
he  is  adapted  to  a  life  of  labor  and  temperance, 
and  if  we  were  able  to  point  out  several  respects 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


271 

in  which  such  a  life  contributes  to  exercise  and 
develop  the  muscles,  to  promote  digestion,  to  sus¬ 
tain  the  physical  constitution  in  health  and  vigor, 
to  promote  comfort,  and  on  the  whole  to  increase 
the  amount  of  pleasure,  the  exhibition  of  such  a 
correspondence  would  be  a  reasonable  and  con¬ 
clusive  method  of  argument.  Similarly,  to  aim 
at  showing  that  man  is,  as  a  moral  being,  adapt¬ 
ed  to  a  religious — a  Christian — life :  this  is  not  to 
forsake  reason  and  to  take  refuge  in  sentimental¬ 
ity.  It  is  to  reason  legitimately  upon  plain  and 
unquestionable  facts,  according  to  the  natural 
principles  of  the  intellect  with  which  we  are  en¬ 
dowed,  and  upon  methods  which  we  constantly 
and  justly  employ. 


II. 

What  are  the  eacts  oe  Man’s  Moral  Na¬ 
ture  AND  LiEE  which  are  OE  HIGHEST 
interest  and  value? 

That  man  is  a  moral  being  who  can  be  so 
shameless  as  to  deny  ?  Philosophy  did  not  wait 
for  the  advent  of  Christianity  before  she  pro¬ 
claimed  the  dignity  of  man  to  lie  in  his  capacity 
for  duty,  his  voluntary  subjection  to  a  law  of 
righteousness.  On  these  topics  the  glorious  think¬ 
ers  of  ancient  Greece,  Plato  and  Aristotle,  have 


272  WITNESS  OF  MAN’S  MORAE  NATURE 

said  tilings  as  grand  as  literature  records.  It 
needs  not  that  one  be  a  Christian,  it  is  enough 
that  one  be  a  man,  in  order  to  appreciate  and  to 
insist  upon  the  supreme  excellence  of  morality  as 
the  crown  of  human  nature  and  life. 

Are  we  like  cattle,  that  we  need  but  to  be  fed 
and  housed,  left  to  live  our  little  term,  and  die  ? 
Are  we  only  raised  above  the  brutes  by  a  more 
.  developed  intelligence,  by  a  higher  power  of 
adapting  means  to  ends,  by  a  faculty  of  foresight, 
by  the  gift  or  acquirement  of  articulate  speech? 
^  Might  we  not  possess  all  these,  and  yet  be  less 
.  than  men  ?  What  is  it  that  gives  to  a  human 
'  being  dignity  in  his  own  view  and  interest  in 
'  the  view  of  his  fellows  ?  It  is  the  possession  of  a 
moral  nature  and  life  which  distinguishes  man 
from  the  brutes,  which  is  his  chief  characteristic, 
his  noblest  prerogative. 

Show  me  a  fellow-creature  who  suffers  every 
disadvantage  incident  to  the  state  of  humanity. 
Let  him  be  crippled  in  his  limbs,  feeble  in  his 
frame,  poor  in  circumstances.  Let  his  calling  be 
mean  and  sordid,  and  let  there  be  in  his  appear¬ 
ance  and  his  station  nothing  to  excite  the  vulgar 
admiration  or  even  attention.  Let  him  be  of 
neglected  education,  untrained  and  undeveloped 
powers.  Still  you  show  me  a  man;  and  because 
he  is  a  man  I  honor  him.  Poor,  feeble,  ignorant 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


273 


thougli  he  be,  he  is  capable  of  much  that  is  pur¬ 
est,  gentlest,  bravest,  noblest,  best  in  humanity. 
He  can  be  a  dutiful  son,  a  faithful  husband,  a 
kind  and  self-denying  father,  a  loyal  subject,  and 
a  generous  friend.  He  can  love;  he  can  shed  the 
tear  of  sympathy;  he  can  bear  his  daily  burden 
of  labor  and  care  with  cheerfulness.  He  can  toil 
through  patient  years  for  wife  and  child;  he  can 
reach  to  a  sinking  brother  the  hand  of  willing 
help.  He  can  brave  the  scorn  of  the  bigot  and 
the  insult  of  the  fool,  and  can  hold  to  his  own 
convictions  through  misunderstanding  and  perse¬ 
cution.  He  can  worship  his  Maker  and  can  trust 
his  Saviour.  And  when  the  time  comes  for  him 
to  die,  he  can,  not  with  brutish  indifference,  but 
with  tranquil  confidence,  lie  down  and  give  up 
his  soul  into  the  hands  of  Him  who  gave  it. 

The  being  of  whom  all  this,  and  more  than 
this,  is  true,  is  a  being  possessed  of  a  moral  na¬ 
ture.  He  has  a  clear  view  of  the  right,  and  the 
power  to  admire,  to  choose,  and  to  perform  it. 
He  has  a  conscience  to  which  he  may  be  loyal. 
He  can  frame  to  himself  some  notion  of  a  God, 
and  can  recogni2;e  the  presence  and  the  voice  of 
the  divine  Father.  He  can  even  deliberately 
order  his  life  by  reference  to  a  standard  of  good 
which  he  has  not  reali2:ed,  and  with  a  view  to  an 
eternity  which  only  faith  can  see. 


274  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  our  opponents  ad¬ 
mit  the  moral  nature  of  man.  No  one  denies 
that  man  has  capacity  for  action ;  and  it  is  main¬ 
tained  by  some  that  he  is  always  driven  to  act  by 
a  desire  to  obtain  pleasure  and  avoid  pain.  But 
this  does  not  represent,  and  obviously  does  not 
exhaust,  the  facts  of  the  case.  Human  nature  and 
life  involve  something  more  than  the  balance 
between  bodily  functions  and  external  nature,  ac¬ 
companied  by  consciousness,  and  especially  by  joy 
and  suffering.  Not  here  attempting  to  explain 
the  undoubted  connection  between  the  physical 
and  the  mental,  and  simply  rejecting  as  unphilo- 
sophical  the  dogmatic  assertion  of  the  subservi¬ 
ency  of  the  latter  to  the  former,  we  would  lay 
down  certain  facts. 

Liberty^  though,  on  purely  dogmatic  and  irrele¬ 
vant  grounds,  questioned  by  some  students  of 
physical  science,  is  so  evident  a  fact  of  human 
nature  that  men  act  upon  its  reality  in  reference 
both  to  themselves  and  to  others.  It  is  the  high¬ 
est  prerogative  of  the  spirit  that  it  possesses  true 
freedom  and  self-government. 

Responsibility  is  a  consequence  of  freedom,  and 
means  something  more  than  a  mere  mechanical 
subjection  to  punishment  inflicted  by  fatal  laws 
upon  those  who  break  them.  Every  eflbrt  to 
reduce  man  to  the  position  of  a  wheel  in  the  vast 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


275 


mechanism  of  nature,  moving  as  he  is  moved, 
rouses  the  protest  of  dishonored  and  outraged 
humanity.  Man  chooses  between  a  lower  and  a 
higher  principle  of  action,  assured  that  his  own 
moral  elevation  or  deterioration  is  involved  in  the 
choice  he  makes. 

Conscience  and  duty  are  inseparable  and  cor¬ 
relative.  What  man  ought  to  do,  the  voice  with¬ 
in  approves  and  enjoins  with  a  moral  imperative. 
Theories  of  conscience  differ,  but  the  great  cardi¬ 
nal  fact  of  conscience  remains  unassailable.  The 
command  of  duty  within  responds  to  the  standard 
of  right  without  us. 

The  moral  law  is  something  quite  different 
from  that  uniformity  of  sequence  which  is  de¬ 
nominated  law  (by  a  usage  of  adaptation)  among 
the  cultivators  of  physical  science.  It  has  also 
important  points  of  difference  from  those  social 
and  political  regulations  which,  as  one  source, 
supply  us  with  the  conception.  It  is  independent 
of  man’s  judgment  and  feeling,  yet  its  excellence 
and  authority  may  be  intuitively  perceived. 
Whether  obeyed  or  violated,  it  asserts  its  rightful 
preeminence,  and  deigns  not  to  lower  its  lofty 
claims,  however  they  may  be  defied  or  resented 
by  the  rebellious. 

Such  are  the  great  primary  facts  of  man’s 
moral  nature :  liberty  of  choice  between  higher 


276  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

and  lower  ends  and  motives,  an  inner  conviction 
of  responsibility  for  the  choice  resolved  upon,  an 
intelligent  apprehension  of  the  law  of  rectitude,  a 
consciousness  of  obligation  to  obey  that  high  and 
sacred  and  imperative  command,  a  nature  which 
can  upbraid  for  sin  and  which  can  aspire  to  good¬ 
ness. 

The  possession  of  a  moral  nature,  the  subjec¬ 
tion  to  a  moral  law,  must  be  regarded  as  man’s 
distinguishing  characteristic,  his  noblest  endow¬ 
ment.  It  is  not  a  man’s  property,  it  is  not  his 
capacity  for  enjoyment,  it  is  not  even  his  power 
of  knowing  and  subduing  nature,  which  consti¬ 
tutes  man’s  chief  interest  and  real  dignity. 

It  is  his  character^  by  which  we  understand  the 
principles  which  he  voluntarily  accepts  and  de¬ 
liberately  embodies  in  his  conduct,  the  moral  tone 
and  temper  of  his  life,  the  moral  influence  he  ex¬ 
ercises  over  his  fellow-men.  It  is  these,  in  a  word, 
which  give  true  humanity  to  man. 

These  truths  are  not  merely  asserted  by  ethical 
philosophers  and  theologians;  they  are  recognized 
in  hiimmt  society.  Mutual  confidence  is  at  the 
foundation  of  social  and  civil  relationships.  Jus¬ 
tice  is  required,  and  benevolence  is  praised,  in  all 
civilized  societies.  Virtue,  disinterestedness,  and 
unselfishness  are  held  in  esteem,  even  by  those 
who  do  not  themselves  possess  such  qualities,  and 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


277 


whether  they  profess  to  esteem  them  or  not.  The 
regulations  of  society  embody  some  portions  of 
the  moral  law,  and  rely  upon  some  of  the  moral 
sanctions. 

So  important  is  morality  deemed  in  human 
communities,  that  it  is  in  part  elaborated  in  juris¬ 
prudence  and  embodied  in  legislation.  The  gov¬ 
ernments  of  earth,  the  laws  of  nations,  the  magis¬ 
tracies  by  which  law  is  administered,  and  the 
penalties  by  which  it  is  enforced — all  are  wit¬ 
nesses  to  the  exalted  position  which  the  conduct 
of  men  and  the  springs  and  motives  and  aims  of 
conduct,  hold  in  the  estimation  of  mankind. 

To  complete,  for  our  purpose,  this  review  of 
man’s  moral  nature,  we  must  advert  to  a  distinc¬ 
tion  of  great  importance,  which  is  in  theory  often 
overlooked,  though  practically  too  obvious  for 
concealment.  Human  nature  may  be  regarded 
either  as  in  its  possible  excellence  or  in  its  actual 
defects.  Scientifically,  we  may  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  the  normal  and  abnormal  state  of  man.  We 
do  not  need  the  Scriptures  or  the  witness  of  reli¬ 
gious  teachers  to  convince  us  of  the  reality  of  this 
distinction.  What  man’s  nature  is  ideally  is  one 
thing;  what  it  is  actually  is  another.  We  do  not 
find  this  distinction  elsewhere;  and  its  existence 
here  implies  the  specialty  of  the  moral  nature  and 
life  of  man. 


278  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

Man,  as  we  know  him,  is  in  an  abnormal  con¬ 
dition.  There  are  those  who  would  not  agree  to 
this  statement,  who  would  say,  Man  is  as  nature 
made  him,  but  is  in  the  way  to  be  something  bet¬ 
ter,  which  also  nature  will  make  him  in  good 
time.  At  all  events,  this  must  be  granted  as  true 
of  men,  that  they  are  not  generally  what  they 
ought  to  be,  and  may  be,  and  perhaps  will  be. 
There  is  a  schism  between  the  ideal  and  the  ac¬ 
tual.  Moral  evil,  what  theologians  call  sin^  is  a 
great  and  fearful  fact. 

This  significant  duality  may  at  first  sight  seem 
to  render  it  a  very  difficult  task  to  take  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  man’s  moral  nature.  On  the  one  side 
we  have  man’s  highest  intuitions  of  what  is  good 
and  morally  beautiful.  On  the  other  side  we  have 
man’s  evil  tendencies  and  habits.  If  we  say  man’s 
nature  is  noble,  admirable,  sublime,  the  loftiest  of 
the  Creator’s  works,  we  speak  the  mere  and  unde¬ 
niable  truth.  If  we  say  man’s  nature  is  corrupt 
and  depraved,  who  can  dispute  the  assertion  ?  In 
the  one  case  we  use  the  term  “nature”  of  the 
ideal  and  perhaps  attainable  state  of  man,  as  that 
which  is  most  excellent  and  most  imbued  with 
and  most  illustrating  the  divine.  In  the  other 
case  we  use  “nature”  to  designate  the  actual, 
the  general,  state  in  which  men  are  found  to  be 
living,  wherever  they  exist. 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


279 


Does  this  twofold  and  (as  it  may  seem  at  the 
first  view)  all  but  contradictory  view  of  man’s 
moral  state,  render  it  an  impossibility  to  elicit  a 
coherent  testimony,  whether  for  or  against  Chris¬ 
tianity  ?  Our  contention  is  that  this  fact,  which 
seems  to  present  a  difficulty,  does  in  reality  im¬ 
part  to  the  witness  in  question  a  convincing  and 
conclusive  power. 


III. 

It  remains  to  exhibit  in  SEVERAIv  particu- 

EARS  OE  ADMITTED  IMPORTANCE  AND  SIG¬ 
NIFICANCE  the  correspondence  between 

Man’s  Morae  Nature  and  Life  on  the 

ONE  HAND,  AND  THE  READING  REVEEATIONS 

OF  Christianity  on  the  other. 

In  this  endeavor  the  twofold  aspect  of  man’s 
moral  nature  and  condition  must  be  kept  in  sight. 
Is  it  the  fact  that  human  nature  is  excellent,  ad¬ 
mirable,  transcending  all  earthly  things  in  dig¬ 
nity  and  value  ?  Has  man  a  power — whether  by 
creation,  inheritance,  or  acquisition — a  power  of 
appreciating  and  perhaps  realising  all  moral 
beauty  ?  Then  it  must  be  shown  that  Christian¬ 
ity  offers  to  him  the  ideal,  the  very  source  of  all 
goodness,  in  the  God  whom  it  reveals ;  and  the 


28o  witness  oe  man’s  morae  nature 

realii;ation,  the  model,  the  motive  of  all  goodness, 
in  the  Saviour  whom  it  alone  presents  to  man. 
Is  it  also  the  fact  that  man’s  nature  is  a  fallen 
nature,  or  (if  this  representation  be  objected  to)  a 
a  very  imperfect  nature,  prone  to  come  short  of 
the  high  ideal,  which  nevertheless  is  native  and 
proper  to  it,  and  apt  to  take  the  lower  level  and 
to  seek  the  lower  end  ?  Then  it  must  be  shown 
that  Christianity  comes  to  hirU  recognising  this 
fact,  and  prepared  to  deal  with  it,  not  by  pallia¬ 
ting  or  overlooking  the  mischief,  but  by  convin¬ 
cing  men  of  sin,  by  securing  to  them  divine  for¬ 
giveness,  by  extending  to  them  the  divine  remedy 
of  compassion  and  mercy,  by  providing  for  them 
the  means  to  a  new  and  holy  life. 


I. 


Man’s  Moral  Nature  agrees  with  the  wit¬ 
ness  OE  Christianity  to  the  Character 
AND  Government  oe  God. 

Some  philosophers,  as  Sir  William  Hamilton, 
have  gone  too  far  in  affirming  that  nature  has  no 
convincing  testimony  to  give  to  its  Creator  and 
Lord,  that  nature  conceals  God,  and  that  only  our 
moral  constitution  gives  evidence  of  a  spiritual 
Maker  and  Ruler.  Still  it  seems  just  to  say  that 
our  moral  nature  is  the  one  leading  interpreter  of 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


281 


til e  great  facts  of  the  divine  government.  Espe¬ 
cially  is  this  the  case  with  the  moral  attributes 
displayed  in  the  divine  treatment  of  humanity. 
The  very  ideas  of  righteousness,  mercy,  longsnf- 
fering,  retribution,  are  ideas  which  we  do  indeed 
apply  to  our  conception  of  God,  but  which  we 
derive  from  our  own  constitution,  our  own  rela¬ 
tions,  and  from  those  varied  experiences  which 
our  constitution  underlies,  which  our  relations 
develop.  We  can  conceive  of  intelligent  but 
non-moral  beings  who  might  perceive  the  traces 
of  power,  wisdom,  and  foresight  as  these  exist  in 
the  material  world.  But  it  is  only  a  moral  na¬ 
ture  that  can  admire,  revere,  adore ;  that  can 
cherish  gratitude,  faith,  and  love.  Intellect 
might  apprehend  something  of  a  mighty  Artifi¬ 
cer,  but  only  a  moral  being  can  recognize  a  just 
and  merciful  Ruler,  a  tender  and  benevolent 
Father. 

Just  such  a  Deity  as  the  Scriptures  reveal,  as 
the  Eord  Christ  most  clearly  and  fully  manifests, 
just  such  a  Deity  our  nature  is  constructed  to  ac¬ 
knowledge  as  corresponding  to  itself.  In  virtue 
of  our  moral  constitution  we  appreciate  moral  ex¬ 
cellence  and  beauty,  and  we  are  capable  of  adoring 
a  Being  who,  in  virtue  of  possessing  moral  attri¬ 
butes  in  perfection,  deserves  and  commands  our 
faith,  homage,  and  worship.  The  eternal  Su- 


282  WITNESS  OF  MAN’S  MORAT  NATURE 


preme,  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  manifested  in 
Jesus  Christ,  realizes  all  our  conceptions  of  moral 
perfection ;  nay.  He  actually  exalts  and  purifies 
those  conceptions  themselves.  This  indeed,  if 
what  has  been  said  is  justifiable,  is  only  what 
might  have  been  expected.  He  who  framed  the 
soul-harp  as  his  own  choicest  workmanship,  he, 
and  he  alone,  can  sweep  all  its  strings,  and  can 
call  forth  all  its  celestial  melody. 

Our  constitution  is  such  that  we  recognize  and 
revere  moral  authority — moral,  as  distinguished 
from  the  authority  of  mere  force.  In  this,  how¬ 
ever  the  origin  of  such  a  constitution  be  account¬ 
ed  for,  we  are  above  the  most  sagacious  of  the 
brutes.  Justice  and  equity,  loyalty  and  unfaith¬ 
fulness,  merit  and  ill-desert,  mercy  and  forgive¬ 
ness,  reward  and  punishment—all  these  are  ideas 
familiar  in  human  society,  and  are  necessary,  not 
only  to  its  order  and  welfare,  but  even  to  its  ex¬ 
istence.  And  as  our  moral  qualities  suggest  the 
divine  attributes,  so  our  moral  and  social  rela¬ 
tionships,  and  the  ideas  to  which  they  give  rise, 
suggest  the  character  and  principles  of  the  divine 
government.  The  fact  is,  that  when  revelation 
makes  known  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  mind  and 
heart  of  man  find  in  that  kingdom  a  perfect  satis¬ 
faction.  The  principles  and  methods  of  that  gov¬ 
ernment,  the  more  they  are  understood,  the  more 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


283 


do  they  commend  themselves  to  our  nature.  The 
voice  within  answers  to  the  voice  without.  As 
the  rocks  upon  a  river’s  bank  send  back  in  echo 
the  roar  of  the  cannon  or  the  music  of  the  horn, 
so  does  the  divinely-fashioned  heart  of  man  yield 
an  immediate  and  exact  response,  alike  to  the 
thunders  of  Sinai’s  law,  and  to  the  still  small 
voice  that  reaches  us  from  the  sacred  hills  of  Gal¬ 
ilee,  or  from  the  sorrowful  garden  of  Gethsemane. 


2. 


Man’s  Moral  Nature  witnesses  to  the 
Unique  Character  and  Ministry  op 
Christ. 

History  witnesses  to  the  facts  of  the  Saviour’s 
life;  but  the  heart  witnesses  to  the  Saviour  him¬ 
self. 

An  impersonal  God  is  an  abstraction,  to  which 
little  interest  can  attach,  and  from  which  no  help 
can  come.  If  God  be  defined  as  “the  Power,  not 
ourselves,  which  makes  for  righteousness,”  the 
question  forces  itself.  Is  such  a  Power  conceivable 
which  is  not  the  power  of  a  living,  conscious,  in¬ 
telligent  being?  Is  moral  power — and  that  which 
makes  for  righteousness  must  surely  be  moral — 
conceivable,  apart  from  a  nature  distinguished  by 
moral  qualities,  in  which  nature  the  moral  power 


284  WlTNi:SS  OF  man’s  MORAL  NATURE 

must  reside  ?  The  recognition  of  a  moral  rule  in¬ 
volves  the  being  of  a  living  and  personal  God. 

Now  Christianity  is  the  religion  which  makes 
known  a  personal  Deity,  and  thus  contradicts  at 
once  the  polytheism  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  pan¬ 
theism  of  the  philosophers.  And  how  does  it 
render  this  service  to  humanity  ?  By  revealing 
to  us,  in  and  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  living  God,  who 
is  “the  Saviour  of  all  men,  specially  of  them  that 
believe.”  The  personality  of  the  Eternal  was  in¬ 
deed  revealed  to  the  Hebrews,  but  it  was  in  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  that  the  divine  nature  was  brought 
near  to  man.  “The  Word  became  flesh,  and 
dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  as  of 
the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and 
truth.”  John  i  :  14. 

So  far  as  oral  teaching  extends,  perhaps  more 
of  God  was  taught  by  Jesus  in  two  utterances 
than  has  been  taught  in  all  words  besides.  When 
he  said,  “  God  is  a  Spirit,”  John  3:24,  and  taught 
his  disciples  to  say,  “Our  Father,  which  art  in 
heaven,  ’  ’  Matt.  6  : 9,  he  revealed  more  than  vol¬ 
umes  of  philosophy  could  have  unfolded. 

But  it  was  in  himself  that  the  chief  revelation 
was  conveyed  to  mankind.  “  He  that  hath  seen 
Me,”  said  Christ,  “hath  seen  the  Father.”  John 
14:9.  Through  the  Incarnation  Christianity 
conveys  the  knowledge  of  the  Father.  No  longer 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


285 


was  God  distant,  hard  to  apprehend  and  to  real¬ 
ise.  From  that  time  onward  the  most  elevated 
human  notion  of  the  Supreme  and  Eternal  has 
been  derived  from  the  Son,  who  made  known  the 
Father.  The  human  heart  had  long  cried  aloud 
for  the  Creator,  the  Ruler,  the  Father;  and  now 
the  response  came,  not  in  words,  but  in  the  per¬ 
son  and  ministry,  the  character  and  influence,  the 
sufferings  and  sacrifice,  the  triumph  and  glory,  of 
the  Christ.  The  human  heart  received  and  wel¬ 
comed  the  response,  and  has  never  ceased  to  wel¬ 
come  it  with  gratitude  and  with  joy.  “This  is 
our  God;  we  have  waited  for  him!”  Isa.  25  :  9. 
The  attributes  which  the  soul  most  admires  and 
honors  it  sees  vital  and  active  in  the  life  of  Im¬ 
manuel.  The  righteousness  and  holiness,  the 
benevolence  and  pity,  which  are  embodied  in  the 
earthly  ministry  of  Jesus,  perfectly  correspond 
with  the  intuitions  of  the  moral  nature.  It  can¬ 
not  be  denied  that  the  moral  nature  recognizees  in 
Christ  the  realization  of  its  ideal  of  moral  perfec¬ 
tion.  Who  does  not  feel  that  it  would  be  an  ab¬ 
surdity  to  put  forward  any  other  being  as  the  in¬ 
carnation  of  absolute  moral  excellence?  We 
should  shrink,  as  from  a  madman,  from  any  fel¬ 
low-man  who  claimed  for  himself  a  sinless  nature 
and  a  perfect  virtue.  But  he  who  asserted  him¬ 
self  to  be  the  Son  of  God  was  above  all  detrac- 


286  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

tion,  and  is  entitled,  by  tlie  suflfrages  of  mankind, 
to  the  designation,  “The  Holy  One  and  the  Just.” 

‘  ‘  Which  of  yon,  ’  ’  said  he,  ‘  ‘  convinceth  me  of 
sin  ?’  ’  J ohn  8:46.  “  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?’  ’ 
Matt.  19  : 17,  was  his  question  addressed  to  an  ad¬ 
miring  inquirer:  “there  is  none  good  save  God,” 
which  was  a  virtual  claim  to  be  “equal  with 
God.”  Witnesses  at  His  trial  could  substantiate 
no  charge  against  him;  his  judge  found  no  fault 
in  him;  the  officer  who  superintended  his  cruci¬ 
fixion  averred,  ‘  ‘  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous 
man!”  Tuke  23:47;  and  the  dying  malefactor 
justly  testified,  “This  man  hath  done  nothing 
amiss.”  Luke  23:41.  Thus  the  unprejudiced 
observers  of  his  life  acknowledged  his  peerless 
holiness,  and  even  prejudice  itself  was  dumb  be¬ 
fore  the  moral  dignity  of  the  Son  of  Man. 

The  judgment  of  contemporaries  did  but  antic¬ 
ipate  the  judgment  of  coming  generations.  Men 
may  not  always  be  the  best  judges  of  what  is  true 
or  of  what  is  wise;  but  the  common  voice  hails 
the  goodness  of  the  good  and  the  greatness  of  the 
great.  The  moral  nature  of  man  is  the  same 
throughout  the  ages;  and  there  is  no  mistaking 
its  verdict  upon  the  claims  of  Christ.  The  moral 
judgment  renders  belief  to  his  words,  consent  to 
his  claims,  veneration  to  his  character. 

There  was,  and  is,  but  one  solution  to  the 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


287 


problem  presented  by  tbe  unique  pbenomenon. 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  the  Father,  who  came  from 
God  and  went  to  God.  A  solution  this  which 
not  the  white  light  of  reason  only,  but  the  warm 
glow  of  pure  and  sympathetic  feeling,  reveals  as 
conclusive  and  satisfactory.  A  solution  this  in 
which  the  universal  conscience  finds  repose.  A 
solution  this  in  which  the  wisest  and  the  best  of 
men  have  acquiesced,  and  which  has  rejoiced  the 
hearts  of  untold  myriads  of  needy,  sinful,  yearn¬ 
ing,  and  aspiring  beings. 

3- 

Man’s  Moral  Nature:  attests  the  excel¬ 
lence  OE  THE  ethical  PRINCIPLES  AND 

THE  ETHICAL  CODE  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

In  the  ancient  Paganism,  religion  and  morali¬ 
ty  were  independent  of  each  other ;  religion  con¬ 
sisted  of  a  routine  of  observances  conducted  large¬ 
ly  by  a  priesthood,  and  morality,  when  scientific, 
based  itself  upon  philosophy.  In  the  Hebrew 
system  there  was  a  combination  of  doctrinal  be¬ 
liefs  with  ethical  commands;  and  every  reader  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  aware  that  conduct  is  very 
largely  the  province  which  religious  law-givers 
and  prophets  sought  to  conquer  and  to  hold  for 
God,  the  righteous  King.  The  Christian  Scrip- 


288  WITNESS  OF  man’s  MORAL  NATURE 

tures  stand  preeminent  in  their  insistence  upon 
morality  as  the  ‘  ‘  fruit  ’  ’  of  religion.  And  what  a 
morality  it  is  !  Even  unbelievers  have  exhausted 
the  resources  of  language  in  their  efforts  to  extol 
its  purity,  its  adaptation,  its  spiritual  power. 
Two  peculiarities  are  here  especially  deserving  of 
notice.  (i.)  The  unsectarian^  catholic  nature  of 
Christian  ethics.  Other  systems  have  their  favor¬ 
ite  virtues,  their  distinctive  aspect  of  the  moral 
life  of  man.  Now,  looking  for  the  moment  at 
morality  as  concerned  only  with  man’s  relation  to 
his  fellow-man,  it  may  be  asserted  that  the  Chris¬ 
tian  code  is  faultless  and  complete,  though  not,  of 
course,  in  the  view  of  scientific  jurisprudence,  sys¬ 
tematic.  Let  any  one  who  doubts  this  read  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Matthew’s  Gospel  and  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  cannot 
but  be  observed  that,  while  the  sterner  virtues  of 
justice,  fortitude,  and  chastity  are  stringently  en¬ 
joined,  a  special  stress  has  been  laid  upon  what 
may  be  termed  the  gentler  and  softer  virtues  of 
compassion  and  benevolence,  which  have  gener¬ 
ally  been  regarded  as  distinctively  Christian. 
There  is  not  a  human  one-sidedness,  but  rather  a 
divine  comprehensiveness  and  completeness,  in  the 
ethical  code  of  the  New  Testament.  (2.)  Atten¬ 
tion  should  also  be  paid  to  another  prominent  fea¬ 
ture  of  Christian  morality  :  the  insistence  upon  the 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


289 


subjectio7t  to  the  perfect  law  of  holiness  and  charity  of 
the  very  thoughts  and  desires  of  the  heart.  This  is 
a  philosophical  principle ;  but  it  is  philosophy 
made  practical  and  popular.  It  recognises  that 
the  spiritual  nature  is  the  source  of  the  good  and 
evil  which  display  themselves  in  the  actions  of 
the  life.  Out  of  the  heart — such  is  the  teaching 
of  the  Prophet  of  Nasareth — proceed  the  actual 
vices  and  the  actual  virtues  of  mankind.  As  pure 
streams  from  a  fountain  undefiled,  so  the  moral 
excellences  that  promote  the  welfare  of  society 
flow  from  a  heart  cleansed  by  the  Spirit  and  warm, 
with  the  love  of  God. 

Now,  however  philosophers  in  their  exalted 
moods  may  have  recognised  the  necessity  of  a 
spiritual  lustration,  it  is  certain  that  Christianity 
alone  has  made  the  belief  of  the  need  of  inward 
purification  and  holiness  the  common  possession 
of  man.  J udaism  did  partially  for  one  nation  what 
in  this  matter  Christianity  is  doing  for  the  race. 
No  religion  is  so  resolutely  opposed  as  is  ours  to 
the  substitution  of  the  formal  and  ceremonial,  or 
even  of  outward  rectitude  of  conduct,  for  the  real 
purity  and  charity  of  the  spiritual  centre  of  our 
being. 

In  reply  to  this  it  is  said,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
this  very  spirituality  is  opposed  to  human  nature, 
and  that,  therefore,  instead  of  a  harmony  we  have 


290  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

a  discord,  and  that  thus  our  argument  is  shown  to 
be  invalid.  No  doubt  Christian  morality  is  alien 
from  the  inclinations  of  those  who  are  living  a  life 
of  unrestrained  passion  and  self-indulgence.  Yet 
even  their  conscience  takes  part  with  religion 
against  their  impulses  and  habits.  Account  for  it 
as  we  may,  there  is  that  in  the  breast  of  the  man 
who  will  allow  himself  to  reflect,  who  will  give 
time  for  the  inner  voice  to  speak,  there  is  that 
which  witnesses  to  the  excellence  and  beauty  of 
the  moral  law.  Our  nature  bows  down  before 
the  highest  expression  of  moral  authority;  awed 
and  wondering  reverence  greets  the  divine  Pres¬ 
ence.  Even  among  those  whom  Christianity 
would  designate  ‘  ‘  the  unregenerate,  ’  ’  there  are 
those  whose  candor  constrains  them  to  the  famous 
confession  of  the  Roman  poet  Ovid:  ‘‘I  see  and 
approve  the  better  things,  while  I  follow  those 
which  are  worse.” 

Another  objection  assails  our  argument  from 
the  contrary  side.  We  are  told  that  the  morality 
of  Christianity  is  indeed  lofty,  but  yet  is  the 
outgrowth  of  the  ethical  sentiments  in  human  na¬ 
ture  ;  that  as  every  quality  has  appeared  in  its 
perfection  in  some  human  beings,  so  goodness  was 
preeminently  represented  in  Jesus,  and  was  paint¬ 
ed  in  colors  of  especial  attractiveness  by  him,  and 
by  those  of  his  immediate  school  who  drank  most 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


291 


fully  into  liis  spirit;  that  there  are  not  two  terms 
to  be  considered  and  harmonised,  morality  and 
Christianity,  for  the  religion  is  but  the  loftiest 
embodiment  of  man’s  moral  nature,  the  flower 
developed  by  the  vigorous  moral  life  of  humani¬ 
ty. 

But  the  fact  is  that  the  ethics  of  Christianity 
did  not  come  from  man  but  to  man,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  professed  a  divine  authority  for  his  revela¬ 
tions,  and  that,  after  all,  what  gives  Christian 
morality  its  true  power  is  its  actual  embodiment 
in  Christ  himself,  and  the  special  motive  to  aspi¬ 
ration  and  obedience  which  he  furnished  in  his 
voluntary  devotion  to  the  cross  for  the  salvation 
of  mankind. 

To  appreciate  the  argument,  the  reader  must 
bear  in  mind  what  has  been  said  regarding  the 
two  aspects  of  human  nature.  Man’s  moral  con¬ 
stitution  in  its  normal  state  involves  reverence  for 
a  law  of  right,  a  law  independent,  spiritual,  all- 
embracing,  and  of  impalpable  and  invisible,  yet 
supreme,  authority  and  sanction.  The  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  substitute  pleasure  for 
right,  as  the  ultimate  law  of  human  conduct,  have 
either  failed  by  their  destruction  of  morality  alto¬ 
gether,  or  have  really  abdicated  in  favor  of  a  prin¬ 
ciple  disinterested  and  dignified.  The  reader  of 
contemporary  philosophy  will  appreciate  this  re- 


292  WITNESS  OE  MAN’S  MORAE  NATURE 

mark  by  recalling  the  progress  from  Jeremy  Ben- 
tham’s  system  to  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill’s  “Utilitarian¬ 
ism,”  and  from  this  to  the  theories  of  Mr.  Her¬ 
bert  Spencer  in  the  ‘  ‘  Data  of  Ethics.  ’  ’  It  must 
be  acknowledged  that  we  are  amenable  to  law, 
and  to  a  law  higher  than  any  originating  in  hu¬ 
man  society,  and  that  we  are  so  constituted  that 
we  feel  this  to  be  the  case. 

Both  sides  of  human  nature  bear  witness  to 
the  morality  of  the  New  Testament.  Our  sinful 
inclinations  and  habits  are  evidence  that  ethics  so 
lofty  did  not  originate  with  man,  but  came  from  a 
higher  and  independent  source.  And  our  moral 
intuitions  admit  and  admire  the  justice  of  claims 
so  lofty  and  the  beauty  of  an  ideal  so  divine. 

4- 

The  Human  Conscience,  or  imperative  oe 

MORAE  OBEIGATION,  IS  IN  ACCORD  WITH  THE 

Reeigion  oe  Christ. 

There  is  within  man  a  deep-seated  conscious¬ 
ness  of  duty.  When  combined  with  erroneous  be¬ 
liefs  and  with  groundless  prejudices,  this  faculty 
may  and  does  lead  to  perseverance  in  wrong-do¬ 
ing;  but  in  itself  it  is  a  noble  attribute  of  human¬ 
ity.  Endeavors  have  been  made  to  do  away  with 
the  great  facts  of  duty  and  conscience,  to  resolve 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


293 


them  into  such  principles  as  interest,  or  the  dread 
of  suffering,  or  the  associations  of  early  training, 
or  the  gregarious  impulse  which  leads  men  to 
flock  upon  the  same  tracks.  But  these  efforts 
cannot  be  said  to  have  succeeded,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  dogmatism  of  the  great  modern  utilitarian 
who  averred  that  the  word  ‘  ‘  ought  ’  ’  was  a  word 
that  ought  to  be  banished  from  language.  Ben- 
tham  was  indeed  a  witness  against  his  own  theory; 
for  he  taught  that  ‘  ‘  every  pleasure  is  a  prima  fa~ 
cie  good,  and  ought  to  be  pursued.” 

Apart  from  questions  as  to  the  genesis  of  con¬ 
science,  the  paramount  claims  of  duty  are  admit¬ 
ted,  although  there  may  be  differences  of  opinion 
as  to  the  sphere  within  which  it  works.  Virtuous 
and  lofty  minds  agree  in  acknowledging  both  the 
commanding  imperative  and  the  awful  beauty  of 
moral  obligation.  Who  can  do  other  than  sym¬ 
pathise  with  the  invocation  of  our  philosophic 
poet: 

“  Stern  Lawgiver !  yet  thou  dost  wear 
The  Godhead’s  most  benignant  grace ; 

Nor  know  we  anything  so  fair 
As  is  the  smile  upon  thy  face ; 

Flowers  laugh  before  thee  on  their  beds, 

And  fragrance  in  thy  footing  treads ; 

Thou  dost  preserve  the  stars  from  wrong, 

And  the  most  ancient  heavens  through  thee  are 
fresh  and  strong.” 


Wordsworth’s  Ode  to  Duty. 


294  witne:ss  oi^  man’s  morai,  nature: 

Now  let  US  ask,  Wkat  is  tke  relation  between 
the  consciousness  of  obligation  within  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  ?  The  question  almost  answers  itself. 
Conscience  is  assumed,  is  appealed  to,  in  every 
book  of  Scripture.  There  are  nowhere  to  be 
found  appeals  to  man’s  sense  of  duty  which  for 
power  and  pungency  can  rival  those  of  holy 
writ.  In  the  discourses  of  our  kord,  and  in  the 
treatises  of  his  apostles,  the  highest  honor  is  put 
upon  our  moral  nature,  for  it  is  addressed  and  chal¬ 
lenged,  its  sanction  is  invoked  with  confidence. 
No  doubt  Christian  ministers  and  churches  have 
often  sought  to  work  upon  men’s  base  fears  and 
selfish  interests  and  superstitious  tendencies.  Our 
religion  does  indeed  warn  men  of  the  fatal  conse¬ 
quences  of  unbelief  and  disobedience;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  seeks  to  allure  men  by  the  appro¬ 
priate  and  powerful  motive  which  impels  us  to 
seek  our  true  happiness. 

Yet  the  Scriptures  are  remarkable  for  their 
habit  of  appealing  to  the  very  highest  principles. 
There  is  a  verse  in  St.  Paul’s  Second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  which  confirms,  in  a  very  striking 
way,  the  assertion  just  made:  “  By  manifestation 
of  the  truth  commending  ourselves  to  every  man’s 
conscience  (literally,  to  every  conscience  of  men) 
in  the  sight  of  God.  ”  2  Cor.  4:2.  This  is  quite  in 
harmony  with  all  Christian  appeal.  Not  to  sense, 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


295 


or  carnal,  worldly  interest;  not  to  superstitions  ter¬ 
ror;  not  to  desire  for  human  applause,  but  to  the 
moral  nature,  the  conscience,  the  responsive  con¬ 
fession  of  the  enlightened  but  not  unbiassed  soul, 
the  voice  which  we  hold  to  be  from  heaven 
addresses  itself.  We  submit  that  the  accord  be¬ 
tween  the  summons  and  the  response  is  evidence 
that  the  same  wisdom  appointed  both,  and  made 
the  one  for  the  other.  A  heathen  moralist  felt 
this  when  he  wrote:  “  Sacer  intra  nos  spiritus 
sedet,  bonorum  malorumque  nostrorum  observator 
et  custos.”  (There  has  its  seat  within  us  a  holy 
spirit,  the  watcher  and  guardian  of  what  in  us  is 
good  and  evil.)  With  Seneca  this  belief  was, 
alas  !  consistent  with  disobedience  to  the  authority 
which  yet  he  confessed  to  be  divine.  The  power 
of  Christian  gratitude  and  love  made  Paul’s  life 
a  far  nobler  and  more  consistent  thing.  And 
what  Paul  felt,  the  lowliest  disciple  of  Christ  feels 
too,  though  in  an  inarticulate  and  unphilosophi- 
cal  fashion.  As  the  thrill  of  the  stricken  lute¬ 
string  evokes  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  the 
untouched  chord  of  its  companion  instrument, 
so,  when  Christ  speaks,  however  softly,  yet  with 
a  divine  authority,  it  is  to  call  forth  the  respon¬ 
sive  music  of  the  human  soul.  There  is  one 
explanation  of  this  harmony  which  deserves  con¬ 
sideration:  it  is  the  conviction  which  Christians 


296  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

have  formed  that  the  same  divine  Spirit  who 
speaks  in  the  Word  and  by  the  Christ  speaks 
also  in  the  sympathetic  and  responsive  spirit  of 
man. 

5- 

There  is  harmony  between  Man’s  aspira¬ 
tions  TOWARDS  Moral  Perfection  and 
THE  Religion  of  Christ. 

This  assertion  may  fail  to  carry  conviction  to 
many  minds.  Oppressed  with  the  spectacle  of 
human  sinfulness  and  degradation,  whether  free¬ 
ly  developed  among  the  brutal  and  criminal,  or 
carefully  concealed  by  the  varnish  of  luxurious 
civilisation,  some  observers  may  be  disposed  to 
question  the  fact  of  such  aspirations  as  are  here 
assumed.  But  the  distinction  already  drawn  be¬ 
tween  man’s  normal  and  abnormal  state  must 
here  be  borne  in  mind.  We  need  not  extenuate 
human  sinfulness  in  order  to  justify  a  conviction 
that  human  nature  possesses  a  strain  of  moral 
nobility.  Apart  from  considerations  of  selfish 
indulgence,  mankind  have  an  admiration  for  self- 
devotion  and  moral  heroism. 

And  as  character  advances  in  ethical  maturi¬ 
ty,  this  admiration  is  strengthened  by  sympathy. 
Mr.  I^ecky  has  well  said  that  characters  of  re¬ 
markable  holiness  have  usually  been  formed 


TO  CHRISTIANITY.  297 

under  the  influence  of  one  or  the  other  of  two 
principles,  the  sense  of  sin,  and  the  yearning  for 
holiness. 

The  aspiration  in  question  is,  we  may  confi¬ 
dently  assert,  provided  for  in  Christianity  as 
nowhere  else.  No  doubt,  as  wflll  be  shown  pres¬ 
ently,  our  religion  does  lay  the  greatest  stress 
upon  human  sinfulness.  But  it  is  therefore  all 
the  more  gloriously  characteristic  of  the  breadth 
of  Christianity  that  it  appeals  to  the  finest  possi¬ 
bilities  of  moral  excellence  which  the  constitution 
of  our  nature  suggests.  The  New  Testament  is  a 
trumpet-call,  summoning  all  who  acknowledge 
its  authority  to  aspiration,  progress,  and  eminence 
in  goodness.  Our  Ibord  himself  will  submit  to 
no  compromise  with  those  who,  to  gain  their 
ends,  would  take  a  lower  view  than  the  high¬ 
est  of  the  aim  to  be  set  before  them  by  those 
who  “would  be  perfect.”  He  not  only  lays 
down  laws  of  the  utmost  spirituality  and  com¬ 
prehensiveness,  he  calls  upon  us  to  come  after 
him,  to  “  take  up  the  cross  and  follow  him.” 
Inspiration  addresses  to  us  the  most  stirring  and 
sublime  monitions:  “  Be  ye  perfect,  even  as  your 
Father  in  heaven  is  perfect!”  Matt.  5:48.  ,  “I 
press  towards  the  mark  for  the  pri^e  of  the  high 
calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus!”  Phil.  3:14. 
Instead  of  encouraging  or  suffering  men  to  remain 


298  WITNESS  OF  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

contentedly  upon  the  lower  level,  the  religion 
which  we  accept  forbids  us  either  to  retrograde  or 
to  pause,  commands  us  to  advance  and  to  aspire. 
The  whole  provision  of  the  spiritual  economy  is 
adapted  to  secure  our  progress.  We  are  assured 
that  we  shall  not  in  vain  obey  the  call  we  have 
received.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  assured,  if  we 
are  faithful  unto  the  end,  of  final  and  everlasting 
fellowship  with  “the  spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect.”  We  are  told  in  very  simple,  but  in 
most  welcome  and  inspiring  language,  that  the 
goal  to  which  w^e  tend  shall  indeed  be  reached, 
that  we  shall  acquire  the  moral  lineaments  of  our 
great  Deliverer  and  Leader:  “We  shall  be  like 
him,  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is  !”  i  John  3:2. 

6. 

The  provisions  of  Christianity  are  Ex- 

ACTEY  ADAPTED  TO  Man’S  ABNORMAE,  SIN- 

FUE  STATE. 

Is  there  any  inconsistency  between  the  belief 
that  man  was  made  for  holiness  and  the  belief 
that  his  condition  is  a  sinful  and  wretched  one  ? 
It  appears  that  there  is  none,  when  it  is  remem¬ 
bered  that  the  abnormal  implies  the  normal,  that 
depravity  is  deflection  from  a  standard  of  recti¬ 
tude.  Sin  could  have  no  meaning  were  it  not 


TO  CHRISTIANITY.  299 

both  a  violation  of  law  and  an  abuse  of  nature. 
We  do  not  charge  a  beast  of  prey  with  moral 
evil  because  of  his  bloodthirsty  tastes  and  savage, 
ferocious  devastations.  The  beast  fulfils  his 
nature;  he  may  be  injurious,  but  is  not  blamable. 
But  we  say  that  man  has  sinned,  meaning  that 
in  living  in  violation  of  the  moral  law  he  is  not 
fulfilling  his  destiny.  Only  a  nature  capable  of 
holiness,  and  meant  for  holiness,  can  sin. 

Now,  man  was  made  for  virtue  and  piety,  and 
can  only  find  his  true  development  in  seeking 
and  his  true  satisfaction  in  finding  these.  But  if 
this  is  incontestable,  it  is  equally  certain  that  his 
life  is  deflected  from  a  standard  which  he  cannot 
but  admire,  that  his  way  is  a  departure  from  a 
course  which  he  cannot  but  approve.  These 
things  being  so,  there  is  an  obvious  discordance 
between  man’s  proper  nature  and  the  actual  state 
in  which  he  exists.  This  is  a  fact  often  strangely 
overlooked  by  ethical  philosophers.  Yet  it  is 
impossible  to  take  a  just  estimate  of  human 
nature,  unless  we  consider  and  allow  for  the 
discordance  between  the  possible  and  the  actual 
in  human  life.  In  truth,  our  moral  being  is  so 
complex,  that  while  it  admits  of  the  existence 
and  even  the  prevalence  of  sin,  it  lifts  up  a  voice 
of  protest  against  the  powerful  position  which 
evil  holds  in  humanity.  There  are  dicta  of  mo- 


300  ^yITNKSS  OF  man’s  moraf  nature 

rality,  both  natural  and  revealed;  but  with  these 
dicta  the  actual  life  of  men  does  not  accord.  We 
approve  and  justify  a  standard,  which  neverthe¬ 
less  we  fail  to  reach. 

If  Christianity,  or  any  religion,  is  oblivious  of 
this  very  important  fact,  such  obliviousness  is  its 
condemnation.  But  if  Christianity  assumes  this 
fact,  and  if  its  provisions  are  in  accordance  with 
it,  then  so  far  it  is  justified.  Upon  examination 
it  will  be  found  that  the  religion  of  Christ  is 
such  that  it  has  evidently  been  provided  and  con¬ 
structed  with  reference  to  the  discordance  now 
described.  The  Scriptures  take  for  granted  our 
strangely  divided  nature,  in  which  order  and  dis¬ 
order,  submission  and  rebellion,  strive  for  the 
mastery.  A  great  and  awful  want  is  acknowl¬ 
edged  and  declared;  but  this  is  not  all:  for  that 
want  a  full  and  perfect  provision  is  made,  a  pro¬ 
vision  which  evokes  from  the  minds  of  those  who 
accept  it  a  tribute  of  grateful  appreciation. 

Every  reader  of  the  New  Testament  must  be 
aware  that  Christianity  makes  the  existence  and 
the  prevalence  of  sin  its  starting-point.  In  fact, 
the  reign  of  moral  evil  over  humanity  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  the  very  reason  of  the  existence  of  our 
religion.  There  is  very  much  in  our  Scriptures 
which  would  be  adapted  to  a  sinless  being:  there 
is  the  law,  there  are  the  impulses,  the  promises, 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


301 


wliicli  we  can  well  believe  would  be  suitable  to 
secure  tbe  continuance  of  sucli  a  being  in  a  state 
of  Holiness,  and  His  advance  to  loftier  HeigHts  of 
moral  excellence.  But  if  tHe  New  Testament 
Had  been  intended  for  sucH  a  being,  its  wHole 
contents  must  Have  been  reconstructed.  For,  as 
it  actually  is,  it  presumes  that  enmity  against 
God  exists,  and  records  tHe  provision  for  reconcil¬ 
iation  witH  Him.  Can  any  inquirer.  However  su¬ 
perficial,  come  to  any  otHer  conclusion  tlian  tHis: 
tHat  CHristianity  is  a  religion  designed  for  a  sin¬ 
ful  race,  and  is  intended  to  secure  for  sinners  tHe 
blessings  of  forgiveness,  of  renewal,  of  spiritual 
strength,  guidance,  progress,  and  peace  ? 

To  be  more  special  upon  this  point,  let  us 
examine  whether  with  regard  to  sin^  and  what  sin 
requires^  there  is  accordanee  between  conseience  and 
Christianity,  They  certainly  agree  in  opposing 
and  condemning  sin.  Yet  general  custom  on  the 
one  Hand,  and  popular  philosophy  on  the  other, 
concur  in  extenuating  the  evil,  proclaiming  the 
necessity  and  predicting  the  perpetuity  of  sin. 
The  Bible  certainly  says  very  Hard  things  of  sin. 
It  is  “  the  transgression  of  the  law,”  i  John  3:4, 

‘  ‘  that  which  God  Hates.  ”  It  is  the  sign  of  a  Heart 
at  “enmity  with  God.”  Its  ill-desert  is  such  that 
no  penalty  is  too  severe  for  those  who  love  and 
practise  sin.  “God  is  angry  with  the  wicked 


302  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAL  NATURE 

every  day.”  Psa.  7:11.  “The  way  of  trans¬ 
gressors  is  hard.”  Prov.  13:15.  “The  sting  of 
death  is  sin.  ’  ’  i  Cor.  15:56.  “  The  wages  of 

sin  is  death.”  Rom.  6:23.  All  this  appears  to 
many  very  stern  and  harsh.  But  if  we  take  the 
question,  not  to  our  inclinations,  not  to  our  neigh¬ 
bors,  but  to  the  tribunal  of  our  own  conscience, 
what  has  this  witness — shall  we  say  this  judge? — 
to  pronounce  upon  the  matter?  Interrogate,  it 
might  be  fairly  said  to  every  reader — interrogate 
your  own  nature!  Are  you  not  compelled  to  ad¬ 
mit  that  all  that  Scripture  says  concerning  sin  is 
true?  that  nothing  less  than  this  would  be  the 
truth?  Try  to  explain  away  the  seriousness,  the 
heinousness,  of  sin.  Risten  to  the  defences,  the 
apologies,  by  which  men  have  striven  to  palliate, 
to  excuse,  even  to  justify  sin.  They  do  not  con¬ 
vince  you.  On  the  other  hand,  you  cannot  take 
exception  to  the  treatment  of  human  sin  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures;  when  they  denounce  and  rebuke 
iniquity,  when  they  declare  the  inconsistency  be¬ 
tween  sin  and  man’s  real  well-being,  they  carry 
your  judgment  and  your  better  nature  with  them. 
Because  your  heart  was  not  made  for  sin,  your  heart 
witnesses  that  the  Word — as  we  term  it,  the  Word 
of  God~is  right  in  exhibiting  sin  as  heinous  in 
itself,  and  as  deserving  the  displeasure  of  God, 
the  righteous  and  holy  Judge. 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


303 


Human  nature,  whicli  witnesses  to  the  reality 
and  enormity  of  sin,  witnesses  also  to  the  need  of 
pardon.  The  conscience  proclaims  that  sin  is  not 
merely  a  violation  of  our  nature,  but  an  offence 
against  a  personal  Ruler  and  Rord.  How  deeply 
rooted  is  this  consciousness  of  the  need  of  forgive¬ 
ness  appears  from  the  prominence  given  in  every 
religion  to  the  means  by  which  it  is  professed  that 
forgiveness  may  be  secured  and  enjoyed.  It  is  not 
necessary  here  to  show  (which  might,  however,  be 
most  conclusively  done)  the  futility  of  the  devices 
for  expiating  ^in  and  for  reconciling  the  sinner 
which  have  obtained  in  various  stages  of  society, 
and  which  have  taken  shape  in  various  schemes 
of  religious  doctrine  and  ritual.  Neither  is  it  ne¬ 
cessary  here  to  expound  and  defend  the  theories  of 
the  Atonement.  But  it  must  be  pointed  out,  as 
distinctive  of  revealed  religion,  that  it  is  redemp¬ 
tive^  that  it  at  the  same  time  condemns  the  sin  more 
trenchantly  than  has  ever  been  done  elsewhere, 
and  absolves  the  sinner  more  completely  and  effec¬ 
tually  than  elsewhere  has  ever  been  proposed  or 
professed.  Bishop  Butler  has  shown  in  his  “An¬ 
alogy”  the  consonance  between  a  mediatorial 
method  of  salvation  and  the  usual  method  of  the 
divine  government.  Unless  we  are  in  rebellion 
against  the  whole  moral  scheme  of  the  universe, 
we  have  reason  to  acquiesce  in  the  central  pro- 


304  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAE  NATURE 

vision  of  Christianity  now  under  consideration. 
And  our  clearest  judgment  and  our  best  feelings 
concur  in  approving  the  plan  upon  which  the  New 
Testament  represents  the  divine  Ruler  as  having 
proceeded.  The  conscience  of  the  most  intelli¬ 
gent  and  of  those  most  earnestly  striving  after 
goodness  finds  repose  and  satisfaction  in  the  gospel 
of  pardon  and  acceptance  through  Jesus  Christ, 
in  whose  incarnation  and  sacrifice  the  divine  Gov¬ 
ernor  appears  supremely  just,  and  at  the  same  time 
supremely  gracious — condemning  sin  and  absol¬ 
ving  the  repenting  and  believing  sinner. 

Exception  is  widely  taken  in  our  times  to  the 
doctrine  of  mediation;  it  is  represented  by  some 
as  violating  instead  of  harmonizing  with  our  con¬ 
victions  of  justice.  It  may,  however,  be  con¬ 
fidently  urged  that  conscience  does  not  rebel 
against  the  unadulterated  teachings  of  revelation. 
Against  these  sin  and  prejudice  may  revolt,  but  a 
quickened  and  enlightened  conscience,  never ! 
Those  who  are  offended  with  this  central  and 
vital  part  of  the  Christian  religion  are  recom¬ 
mended,  in  the  first  place,  to  examine  for  them¬ 
selves  what  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  and  not 
to  waste  their  energies  in  fighting  a  foe  of  their 
own  invention. 

Another  aspect  of  the  treatment  of  sin  and  the 
sinner  by  the  religion  of  Christ  must  be  consid- 


TO  CHRISTIANITY.  305 

ered.  There  is  a  practical  hostility  to  the  lofty  aiid 
exacting  demands  of  spiritual  religioji.  While  the 
higher  nature  approves,  the  baser  nature  resents 
those  claims.  Can  this  hostility  be  overcome, 
and  how  ?  A  religion  which  should  undertake  to 
pardon  sin — to  release  the  sinner  from  the  penal¬ 
ties  consequent  upon  sin — and  should  omit  or  fail 
to  secure  his  practical  and  cheerful  submission  to 
the  highest  law  of  moral  life,  would  surely  betray 
its  origin  in  man’s  own  selfishness  and  sinfulness. 
A  religion  which  should,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
remitting  the  consequences  of  sin,  provide  for  the 
forgiven  sinner’s  renewal,  reformation,  and  ad¬ 
vance  in  the  love  and  practice  of  goodness,  would 
seem  to  proclaim  itself  the  production  of  Him 
whose  power  in  the  moral  universe  ‘‘makes  for 
righteousness.”  At  all  events,  in  this' case  the 
moral  nature  of  man  will  give  its  cordial  assent 
and  approbation,  and  so  far  will  declare  itself  a 
most  favorable  witness. 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Christianity  has  in¬ 
troduced  a  moral  power  into  humanity  unknown 
apart  from  the  presence  of  Christian  faith  and 
knowledge.  This  power  has  proved  itself  ade¬ 
quate  to  the  vanquishing  of  the  natural  enmity 
of  the  heart  to  self-control  and  self-denial.  The 
Christian  religion  has  found  and  revealed  a  way 

of  rendering  virtue— which  is  admittedly  admira- 

20 


3o6  witness  of  man’s  moraf  nature 

ble  and  desirable—actually  attainable;  has  made 
the  path  of  obedience  progressively  congenial, 
attractive,  and  delightful.  There  is  general  agree¬ 
ment  that  this  is  the  distinguishing  characteristic 
of  Christianity.  First,  in  point  of  time,  comes 
the  provision  for  pardon;  but  first  in  point  of  real 
importance  comes  the  provision  of  a  spiriUtal 
power^  which  secures  the  love  and  practice  of  ho¬ 
liness.  The  evidences  of  that  power  are  open  to 
the  observation  of  all;  the  secret  explanation  of 
that  power  is  a  Christian  doctrine,  which  is  in¬ 
deed  reasonable,  but  may  not  command  a  univer¬ 
sal  credence.  It  is  known  to  the  disciples  and 
friends  of  the  Lord  Jesus  that  the  great  motive  to 
obedience  is  love  to  a  personal  Saviour,  a  motive 
capable  of  producing  results  which  no  other  power 
could  effect.  The  apostle  Paul  has  summed  up 
this  aspect  of  our  religion  in  his  memorable  say¬ 
ing,  “The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us.”  A 
motive  like  this  may  meet  with  the  scorn  and  rid¬ 
icule  of  worldly  and  selfish  minds,  but  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  consonant  with  our  nature.  Per- 
sonal  gratitude,  devotion,  and  consecration  to  a 
divine  Saviour  lead  to  a  higher  style  of  morality, 
a  higher  type  of  obedience,  than  can  be  secured 
by  any  other  means,  however  agreeable  a  carnal 
nature  and  a  worldly  policy.  Grateful  love  to 
the  Redeemer,  awakened  and  sustained  by  the 


TO  CHRISTIANITY.  307 

Holy  Spirit  of  God,  prompts  to  purposes  whicli 
inspire  and  regulate  a  new  moral  life.  A  motive 
more  in  consonance  with  our  moral  nature  it 
would  not  be  possible  to  imagine. 

L^t  this  twofold  dealing  with  the  condition  of 
sinful,  feeble  man  be  taken  into  consideration. 
Let  it  be  observed  how  Christianity  provides  for 
the  absolution  of  the  penitent  sinner  and  for  the 
renewal  of  the  character  and  the  purification  of 
the  life.  And  then  let  the  highest  reason  and  the 
best  feelings  of  humanity  be  called  upon  to  speak 
as  to  the  excellence  and  adaptation  of  this  pro¬ 
vision  to  human  nature  and  to  human  need.  And 
if  the  witness  be  favorable,  surely  the  fact  is 
worthy  of  weight  in  the  estimation  of  those  who 
believe  in  a  moral  Governor  of  wisdom  and  be¬ 
nevolence.  At  all  events,  it  may  be  confidently 
said  that  so  far  as  the  evidence  of  conscience  goes, 
it  supports  the  claim  which  we  make,  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  divine,  and  is  worthy  of  all  acceptation. 

« 

7- 

Man’s  Moral  Naturk  witnesses  to  the 
wholesome  influence  of  the  Religion 
OF  Christ  upon  Human  Society. 

No  just  and  complete  view  of  man  can  regard 
simply  the  life  of  the  individual.  Although  there 


308  witness  of  man’s  morae  nature 

have  been  and  are  tendencies  impelling  men  to 
accept  Christianity  simply  as  designed  for  their 
individual  salvation,  it  was  not  thus  that  our 
religion  was  conceived  by  its  Founder  and  first 
promulgators;  nor  is  it  thus  that  its  enlightened 
adherents  conceive  it  to-day.  Man  is  social,  is  a 
member  of  the  family,  of  the  State,  of  the  race. 
If  there  is  in  human  nature  a  selfish  tendency, 
there  is  also  a  principle  of  sympathy  and  benevo¬ 
lence.  Much  stress  is  laid,  and  justly  laid,  upon 
a  spirit  of  unselfishness,  upon  what  it  has  become 
the  fashion  to  call  ‘  ‘  altruism,  ”  as  a  principle 
complementary  to  the  quest  of  well-comprehend¬ 
ed  self-interest. 

It  may  fairly  be  argued  that  the  strength  of 
benevolence  in  modern  society  is  owing  to  the 
teaching  and  to  the  impulse  of  Christianity. 
This,  however,  is  not  our  present  contention.  All 
that  is  asked  is  this:  Is  there  an  agreement  be¬ 
tween  our  “better  nature,”  our  unselfish  aims 
and  efforts,  and  the  truths  of  the  Christian  reli¬ 
gion  taken  in  conjunction  with  their  influence 
upon  society? 

Fet  the  lessons  of  the  New  Testament  be  can¬ 
didly  considered.  The  divine  Teacher  issues  his 
new  commandment,  “  Love  one  another.  ”  John 
13  134.  He  enunciates  the  principle  of  unselfish 
helpfulness  in  the  admonition,  “Freely  ye  have 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


309 


received,  freely  give.”  Matt.  10:8.  His  apos¬ 
tles  enjoin  the  maxim,  “Bear  ye  one  another’s 
burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ.”  Gal. 
6  :  2.  They  strike  at  the  trunk,  the  root,  of  self¬ 
ishness  with  the  axe-stroke,  ‘  ‘  Get  every  man  look 
not  upon  his  own  things,  but  every  man  also  upon 
the  things  of  others.  ’  ’  Phil.  2  : 4.  Does  not  the 
true,  the  higher  nature  of  man  listen  to  these  laws 
and  precepts  with  a  wondering  reverence,  and 
render  to  them  the  response  of  an  approving  and 
consenting  testimony? 

Yet  it  is  not  by  words  that  the  giant  selfishness 
is  slain.  The  life,  the  love,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
himself  are  the  real  weapons  of  this  spiritual  war¬ 
fare.  The  cross  is  the  true  and  effectual  inspira¬ 
tion  of  man’s  devotion  to  the  interests  of  his  fel¬ 
low-man  ;  the  enthusiasm  of  Christ  is  the  true 
source  of  “the  enthusiasm  of  humanity.” 

“  Talk  we  of  morals  ?  O  thou  bleeding  Lamb, 

The  grand  morality  is  love  of  thee.”  Cowper. 

It  may  be  freely  admitted  that  language  far 
too  sweeping  has  sometimes  been  employed  to 
describe  the  actual  amelioration  of  the  human  lot 
which  has  already  been  effected  by  the  religion  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Still,  no  well-informed  and  candid 
person  will  deny  that,  of  all  the  forces  which  have 
contributed  to  improve  the  morals  and  to  promote 


310  WITNESS  OE  man’s  MORAL  NATURE 

the  happiness  of  the  race,  none  can  compare  for 
vigor  and  for  efficiency  with  the  Christian  faith. 
Bvil  is  sometimes  laid  to  the  charge  of  Christian¬ 
ity  which  is  in  reality  the  result  of  the  system  of 
sacerdotalism.  But  how  much  of  good  must  in 
all  fairness  be  credited  to  the  influence  of  Christ 
upon  mankind  ! 

Against  vice  and  crime  Christianity  from  the 
beginning  directed  its  assaults  with  remarkable 
energy  and  success.  Against  usages  and  institu¬ 
tions  belonging  to  half-civilised  and  selfish  states 
of  society  Christianity  prepared  its  siege  of  mines 
and  batteries- — sooner  or  later,  but  only  at  the 
right  moment— to  open  fire.  The  frightful  cru¬ 
elty,  the  utter  and  wanton  indifference  to  suffer¬ 
ing,  the  disregard  of  life,  so  characteristic  of  the 
ancient  world,  have  certainly  been  immensely  di¬ 
minished  by  the  prevalence  of  Christian  princi¬ 
ples.  Those  principles  gradually  but  surely  un¬ 
dermined  the  degrading  institution  of  slavery, 
which  has  now  all  but  disappeared  from  among 
even  nominally  Christian  communities. 

What  has  been  done  is  more  than  a  proof  of 
the  beneficent  influence  of  Christianity,  and  may 
fairly  be  deemed  an  earnest  of  the  triumphs  await¬ 
ing  its  progress  in  the  future.  There  are  indica¬ 
tions  that  evils  still  prevalent,  but  condemned  by 
our  religion,  will,  by  its  growing  influence,  be 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


3^1 

cliecked,  if  not  eradicated.  The  war  has  not  been 
carried  on  with  vigor  along  the  whole  line  where 
immorality  of  all  kinds  is  confronted.  But  this  at 
least  may  be  confidently  claimed  on  behalf  of  the 
religion  of  Christ,  that,  in  every  moral  conflict  in 
this  world,  Christianity  is  on  the  right  side;  that, 
when  she  speaks,  her  voice  is  uniformly  and  un¬ 
falteringly  opposed  to  vice  and  crime,  and  in  favor 
of  the  cause  of  virtue,  liberty,  and  happiness. 

Perhaps  even  more  important  than  the  protest 
of  Christianity  against  sin  is  its  purifying,  eleva¬ 
ting,  harmonising,  and  generally  beneficial  influ¬ 
ence  upon  the  social  life  of  men.  As  a  social  re¬ 
ligion,  it  has  regard  to  all  classes  and  conditions 
of  men,  and  seeks  their  elevation  and  well-being. 
It  is  a  kingdom,  and  its  Head  contemplates  the 
welfare  of  every  subject;  a  family  in  which  the 
interests  of  no  single  child  are  overlooked.  It 
fosters  the  legitimate  development  of  society,  and 
furthers  the  progress  of  mankind  towards  univer¬ 
sal  brotherhood  and  universal  happiness.  Bach 
Christian  congregation  then  only  fulfils  its  mis¬ 
sion  when  it  is  a  centre  of  light  and  spiritual 
power.  Our  religion  is  the  enemy  of  uncharita¬ 
bleness,  hatred,  envy,  social  disorganization,  and 
oppression;  it  cherishes  “the  hate  of  hate,  the 
scorn  of  scorn,  the  love  of  love.”  Its  aim  is  to 
bring  mankind  into  unity,  by  bringing  all  men 


313  WITNESS  OF  man’s  MORAL  NATURE 

alike  into  subjection,  not  to  an  earthly  conqueror 
or  king,  but  to  the  true  and  divine  Head  of  “  the 
new  humanity.”  Compare  its  design  and  its 
method  with  those  of  great  military  conquerors, 
or  with  those  of  such  a  fantastic  philosopher  as 
Comte,  and  recognize  its  vast  superiority.  Here 
is  the  highest  ideal  of  the  social  life  of  humanity, 
for  here  the  free  development  of  the  individual  is 
to  play  its  part  in  the  harmonious  and  ordered  co¬ 
operation  of  all  the  members  of  society  towards 
the  one  great  ultimate  result. 

The  enlightened  and  unsophisticated  con¬ 
science,  weighing  these  claims  of  Christianity  in 
virtue  of  its  power  to  effect  a  social  regeneration, 
is  constrained  to  acknowledge  their  validity. 
Man’s  moral  nature  recognizes  in  this  religion 
her  mightiest  auxiliary  in  the  holy  war,  discerns 
her  hope  fulfilled,  her  aspirations  realized.  Com¬ 
pared  with  other  claimants,  Christianity,  in  the 
view  of  morality,  stands  alone,  peerless  and  un¬ 
approachable, 

“  Fair  as  a  star,  when  only  one 
Is  shining  in  the  sky.” 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


313 


8. 

There  is  Agreement  between  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Doctrine  oe  Retribution  and  the 
Morae  Judgment  or  Conscience  op 
Man 

Probably  there  was  a  time  when  religion  was 
regarded  by  theologians  too  much  as  a  matter  of 
government,  when  God  was  represented  too  ex¬ 
clusively  as  the  ruler  and  judge.  But  in  our  own 
day  it  is  common  to  run  into  the  other,  the  oppo¬ 
site  extreme,  and,  in  laying  just  stress  upon  the 
Fatherhood  of  God,  the  pity  of  Christ,  the  attrac¬ 
tiveness  of  the  gospel,  to  leave  out  of  sight,  per¬ 
haps  even  contemptuously  to  disparage  or  to  deny, 
the  moral  government  of  God.  Now,  however 
much  a  sentimental  and  invertebrate  theology 
may  fret  against  the  doctrine  of  responsibility  and 
retribution,  those  doctrines  cannot  be  overthrown 
so  long  as  human  nature  remains  what  it  i.s,  so  long 
as  the  Scriptures  are  accepted  as  of  supreme  au¬ 
thority.  They  are  opposed  from  two  sides. 

Those  who  regard  man  as  an  automaton,  acted 
upon  by  physical  forces,  and  acting  as  acted  upon 
(and  these  are  a  very  numerous  and  influential 
class  in  our  days),  deny  moral  retribution.  Car¬ 
rying  the  analogy  of  natural  processes  and  laws 


314  WITNESS  OF  man’s  MORAF  NATURE 

into  tlie  spiritual  realm,  they  tell  us  that  nature  is 
a  system  of  inflexible  laws,  and  that  he  who  con¬ 
forms  to  those  laws  will  prosper,  while  he  who 
violates  them  will  suffer ;  that  in  this  sense  retri¬ 
bution  is  a  fact,  and  in  no  other;  that  a  vicious 
man,  who  is  prudent,  will  fare  better  than  a  vir¬ 
tuous  man  who  is  impulsive ;  and  that,  as  man 
ceases  to  be  when  his  body  perishes,  we  need  not 
concern  ourselves  about  a  future  which  is  but  a 
dream. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  accept  as  much 
of  Christianity  as  falls  in  with  their  own  fancies 
and  prepossessions,  tell  us  that  as  God  is  love,  we 
need  be  under  no  apprehension  that  here  or  here¬ 
after  we  shall  be  called  to  account  for  our  sins, 
that  a  benevolent  Deity  will  secure  our  happiness 
irrespectively  of  our  conduct,  in  view  of  the 
righteous  and  binding  law  of  God. 

Now,  in  this  controversy,  human  theories  and 
imaginations  are  on  one  side,  while  on  the  other 
are  (i)  The  facts  of  our  moral  nature,  and  (2)  the 
plain  statements  of  Scripture,  giving  an  unmis¬ 
takably  accordant  utterance. 

Our  human  life  is  an  education,  but  it  is  a  pro¬ 
bation  also.  We  cannot  leave  out  of  view  either 
the  reproaches  and  the  remorse  of  a  guilty  con¬ 
science,  or  the  facts  of  an  overruling  and,  to  some 
extent,  retributive  providence,  even  in  this  life. 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


315 


Nor,  further,  can  we  set  aside  the  anticipation  of 
judgment,  which  is  almost  universal  among  men, 
and  which  is  only  exterminated  when  all  is  exter¬ 
minated  which  raises  man  above  the  brutes. 

In  these  respects  how  perfect  is  the  agreement 
between  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  and 
the  enlightened  and  sensitive  conscience  of  man  ! 
Not  to  dwell  upon  such  general  statements  as 
“God  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  or¬ 
dained,”  Acts  17  :  31,  and  “We  must  all  appear 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,”  2  Cor.  5  : 10, 
we  may  call  to  mind  that  from  the  lips  of  the  be¬ 
nign,  compassionate,  and  gracious  Saviour  him¬ 
self  came  declarations  the  most  comprehensive 
and  unmistakable  regarding  human  retribution. 
He  pronounced  blessings^  but  he  also  pronounced 
woes.  He  anticipates  that  general  judgment  when 
all  nations  shall  be  gathered  before  him,  and  when 
the  same  lips  which  shall  utter  the  welcome, 
“Come,  ye  blessed  !”  shall  also  utter  the  fearful 
sentence,  “Depart,  ye  cursed!”  Matt.  25  :  34,  41. 
It  is  in  vain  to  represent  religion  as  wearing  only 
an  aspect  of  benignity;  it  wears  also  an  aspect  of 
severity ;  and  in  this  twofold  aspect  there  is  a 
complete  accordance  with  the  manifest  facts  of 
our  nature. 


3i6  witness  ot  man’s  morae  nature 


9- 

M'an’s  Moral  Nature  finds  satisfaction 
IN  THE  Revelations  of  the  Christian 
Religion  concerning  Immortality. 

Man  alone,  of  the  inhabitants  of  earth,  has  the 
power  to  apprehend  and  to  hope  for  a  deathless 
life.  Men  are  not  to  be  persuaded  that  this  bod¬ 
ily  and  earthly  life  comprises  the  whole  of  their 
being;  they  have  good  reasons  for  believing  oth¬ 
erwise.  The  expectation  of  an  endless  hereafter 
is  not  merely  a  conclusion  derived  from  argument; 
it  springs  from  a  natural  tendency,  a  spiritual  as¬ 
piration^  strengthened  by  moral  discipline.  We 
refuse  to  believe  that  we  were  made  with  death¬ 
less  hopes  destined  to  be  quenched  in  the  cold 
waters  of  annihilation  and  oblivion.  Yet  reason 
is  insufficient  to  transform  this  longing  into  a 
definite  belief.  We  can,  while  taught  by  reason 
alone,  go  no  farther  than  hope  will  lead  us  : 

“  The  hope  that,  of  the  living  whole, 

No  part  shall  fail  beyond  the  grave; 

Derives  it  not  from  what  we  have 
The  likest  God  within  the  soul  ?” 

Tennyson. 

A  religion  which  shall  command  the  acceptance 
of  man’s  nature  must  satisfy  man’s  loftiest  yearn- 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


317 


ings  and  anticipations  with  regard  to  the  future, 
and  must  reveal  a  prospect  worthy  of  man’s  pow¬ 
ers  and  capacities. 

The  teaching  of  Christianity  is  definite  upon 
these  points.  It  encourages  the  hope  that  in  a 
higher  condition  of  existence  our  best  aspirations 
shall  be  allowed  a  wider  scope.  There  will  be 
provision  for  increase  of  knowledge;  for  here  we 
know  in  part,  but  there  we  shall  know  even  as 
we  are  known.  i  Cor.  13  : 12.  There  will  be 
assimilation  of  character  to  Him  who  is  supreme¬ 
ly  good;  for  “the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God.” 
Matt.  5  :  8.  There  will  be  limitless  accessions  to 
happiness:  “blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the 
Tord.”  Rev.  14  : 13.  There  will  be  abundant 
room  for  the  exercise  of  our  social  sympathies  in 
“the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first¬ 
born,  which  are  written  in  heaven.”  Heb.  12:23. 
There  will  be,  what  is  preeminently  congenial  to 
the  Christian  heart,  intimate  fellowship  with 
Christ  himself :  for  there  “shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  lyord.”  i  Thess.  4  : 17.  There  will  be  eter¬ 
nal  security  and  felicity:  for  they  “go  no  more 
out.”  Rev.  3:12. 

In  such  representations  and  assurances  Chris¬ 
tianity  supplies  what  nature  cannot  give,  fills  up 
the  void,  makes  the  vision  plain,  the  voice  intel¬ 
ligible.  But  the  case  is  not  merely  one  of  ab- 


3i8  witness  of  man’s  morae  nature 

stract  teaching.  The  explicit  declarations  of  the 
Saviour  are  both  embodied  in  his  person  and  sup¬ 
ported  and  sanctioned  by  his  resurrection.  “  I,  ” 
said  he,  ‘  ‘  am  the  Resurrection  and  the  Rife ; 
whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never 
die.”  John  ii  :  25,  26. 

Such  are,  in  brief,  the  revelations  of  Christi¬ 
anity  concerning  what  must  always  be  of  intense 
interest  to  men — the  future  and  unseen  state. 
Such  are  the  prospects  held  out  by  the  religion 
which  is  equally  at  home  in  this  world  and  in  the 
world  to  come. 

What  has  the  moral  nature  of  man  to  say  to 
revelations  such  as  these  ?  That  nature  proposes 
vast  questions;  how  does  it  receive  these  answers? 
It  has  been  well  said,  “Every  man  feels  within 
himself  a  crowd  of  desires  and  faculties  which  this 
life  does  not  content;  and  he  would  deem  himself 
very  unhappy,  and  Him  who  has  made  him  very 
unjust,  if  his  destiny  were  never  to  attain  this 
happiness,  this  perfection  of  which  he  has  the 
idea .  It  is  that  which  unavoidably  sug¬ 

gests  to  him  thoughts  of  the  other  life;  and,  these 
thoughts  once  awakened  in  his  mind,  there  is  no 
more  rest  for  him  if  the  doubt  remains,  and  if  no 
clear  solution  comes  to  resolve  it.  ”  * 

A  nature  with  such  requirements  cannot  be 

*■  JoufFroy,  “  Nouveaux  Melanges  Philosophiques,”  p.  105. 


TO  CHRISTIANITY. 


319 


indifferent  to  the  professions  and  promises  of  the 
religion  of  Christ.  Is  it  likely  that  man,  so  con¬ 
stituted,  will  turn  aside  from  the  revelations  of 
Christianity,  and  adopt  in  preference  the  teaching 
of  the  materialist  and  atheist,  according  to  whom 
man  perishes  like  the  brutes,  and  is  no  more — a 
foam-fleck  upon  the  rushing  river  of  universal  be¬ 
ing?  Or  will  he  not  rather  exclaim,  God  made 
the  soul  for  immortality,  and  appointed  immor¬ 
tality  for  the  soul !  Here  is  found  the  true  and 
longed-for  rest ;  here  the  strong,  sustaining  hope  ! 

CONCLUSION. 

The  argument  presented  is  one  of  adaptation 
and  correspondence.  Man’s  moral  nature  being  an 
admitted  reality,  and  the  Christian  religion  an 
acknowledged  fact,  it  has  been  attempted  to  show 
that  the  one  is  fitted  for  the  other.  Man’s  esteem 
and  honor  for  what  is  right,  his  contrition  for  sin, 
and  his  aspirations  towards  immortality,  all  testify 
to  Him  from  whom  not  only  do  they  proceed,  but 
the  revelation  also  that  responds  to  and  satisfies 
them;  all  testify  to  the  Cross,  that  brings  peace 
to  the  conscience  and  inspiration  to  the  new  and 
better  life;  all  testify  to  the  ascended  King  him¬ 
self,  who  lives  for  ever  to  love  and  bless,  and  yet 
eternally  to  reign. 


320 


CONCLUSION. 


The  argument  is  admittedly  one  of  probability^ 
and  (it  is  urged)  of  probability  so  high  as  to  afford 
conclusive  reason  for  action.  It  is  an  argument 
cumulative  in  form.  Each  one  of  the  particulars 
mentioned  has  a  certain  strength ;  taken  to¬ 
gether,  they  constitute  a  powerful  and  conclusive 
argument  in  favor  of  our  religion,  and  justify  a 
cordial  and  practical  acknowledgment  of  its 
claims. 


. 


t 


\ 


\ 


< 


i:  • 

\ 


s 


f 


{ 


i 


•1.1 


/ 


f 


\ 


